can never substitute for or fulfill the State’s obligation to establish the truth and ensure the judicial determination of individual responsibilities by criminal judicial proceedings. 373 331. The Court considers that there are different reasons that explain the importance of determining individual responsibilities for serious violations of human rights judicially. On the one hand, truth commissions are not judicial institutions and should never assume such functions. “Although commissions can attribute responsibility, they should not arrogate the authority to make determinations concerning criminal guilt,” 374 because they run the risk of violating fundamental rights, such as the presumption of innocence, and even the right to privacy of the victims. 332. The Court also considers that such judicial proceedings play a significant role in making reparation to the victims, who are no longer regarded as passive subjects in relation to the public authorities but “become claimants of rights and participants in the processes by which the content, application and strength of the law are defined.” 375 In other words, “criminal prosecutions provide recognition to victims as rights holders.” 376 “The right to truth entitles the victim, his or her relatives and the public at large to seek and obtain all relevant information concerning the commission of the alleged violation” 377 and, in cases such as this one, a proceeding that officially determines this violation. 333. The Court referred to this issue in particular and expressly in the case of Gomes Lund et al. v. Brazil. In that case, the Court established that, in cases of gross human rights violations – and if the investigation of a punishable act is involved – the decision to classify information as secret and to refuse to hand it over could never depend exclusively on a State organ whose members had been attributed with the perpetration of the unlawful act. 334. The Court has also considered that any denial of information must be justified and substantiated, and the State has the burden of proof as regards the impossibility of producing the information. Moreover, when doubt or a legal vacuum exists, the right of access to information should be given priority. In addition, the Court recalls that it has indicated that State authorities may not shield themselves by mechanisms such as State secrets or the confidentiality of information in cases of human rights violations. 378 Likewise, the final decision concerning the existence of the documentation requested cannot be left to their discretion. 379 335. In this regard, the Court notes that, it was only in 2007, that the State finally disclosed the extrajudicial truth of the facts with the publication of the report of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances. Until then, the State institutions – in particular, the Army – maintained a version of the facts that the courts had declared to be false in 1978 when the judgment on the declaratory action was delivered (supra paras. 132 to 134). The Court also notes that it was not until 2013 that the victim’s family obtained the rectification of the 373 Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 297, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities in the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 287. 374 UN. Report of Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of nonrecurrence A/67/368. September 13, 2012, para. 72. 375 UN. Report of Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of nonrecurrence A/67/368. September 13, 2012, para. 66. UN. Report of Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of nonrecurrence A/HRC/27/56. August 27, 2014, para. 22. 376 377 UN. Report of Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of nonrecurrence A/HRC/24/42. Augsut 28, 2013, para. 20. 378 Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 230. 379 Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brasi, para. 202. 87