investigation and prosecution enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.” 468 The Court has adjudged other cases in which it has developed additional and more specific tenets applicable to this concrete case of violation of the right to know the truth, such as Anzualdo Castro et al. vs. Peru and Gelman vs. Uruguay.469 Similarly, in the Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala case, the Court examined violation of the right to know the truth in its analysis of the right to personal integrity of family members and found that, by covering up information that could have helped the families learn the truth, the State in that case had violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention.470 The Court also declared an autonomous violation of the right to the truth in the Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil case, in which, due to the specific circumstances at play, in addition to a violation of the right of access to justice and effective recourse, it also found a violation of the right to seek and receive information, enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention. 471 429. The Court therefore reiterates that all persons, including the next of kin of the victims of gross human rights violations, have, pursuant to Articles 1(1), 8(1), and 25, as well as in certain circumstances Article 13 of the Convention, the right to know the truth. 472 The Court would add that the facts regarding Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza came under analysis by the ordinary courts at a later date, and this process provided answers to what had happened. By contrast, 18 years after the facts, the whole truth about the events surrounding the extrajudicial execution of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez is still not known. Although these facts were addressed in a ruling by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (supra paras. 308 to 310) and by a judicial investigation, even the Supreme Court has found that “there are still certain details about the facts associated with victim Cruz Sánchez that can and must be clarified through a more intense line of investigation.” 473. In most cases, the Court has established this precept in its analysis of the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, supra, para. 166; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 180; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 151; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 206; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paras. 243 and 244; Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 240; Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru, supra, para. 220; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 147; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, paras. 119 and 120, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador, supra, para. 298. This precept was developed in another case under the obligation to investigate, and ordered as a measure of reparation. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 148. In other cases, the Court held in its analysis that it is subsumed in Articles 8(1), 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, but did not include this consideration as part of its reasoning in the particular operative paragraph. Cf. Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela, para. 291; Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 263, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 173. 468 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, paras. 168 and 169, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, paras. 192, 226 and 243 to 246. 469 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 302. 470 The Court discussed the matter in the Gomes Lund et al. case, holding that, given the facts of the case, the right to know the truth was related to a motion lodged by family members to gain access to certain information concerning access to justice and the right to seek and receive information, enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention, and therefore included this right in its analysis of the same provision. Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, supra, para. 201. 471 472 220. Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 243, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru, supra, para. Ruling by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on an appeal to vacate judgment, 35212012 July 24, 2013 (evidence file, volume XXI, further helpful evidence, folio 14721). 473