250. In their final written arguments, in response to the request for helpful evidence, 277 the representatives indicated, inter alia, that the State had restricted the access of Narciso González Medina’s family to the file of the investigation reopened in 2007. For its part, the State indicated that it had provided Mr. González Medina’s family with “unrestricted access” to all the information relating to the investigation, “except for information that could limit the effectiveness of the investigation, because it has not yet concluded.” It specified that it had not limited the right of the alleged victim’s family “apart from matters that could hinder the investigation,” and that its action was “protected by the General Law on Free Access to Public Information.” 251. The Court recalls that, in accordance with the right recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the States have the obligation to guarantee the right of the victims or their family to take part in all stages of the respective proceedings, so that they can make proposals, receive information, provide evidence, formulate arguments and, in brief, assert their interests and rights. 278 The purpose of this participation should be access to justice, learning the truth of what happened, and the award of just reparation. 279 In this regard, the Court has established that domestic law must organize the respective proceedings in accordance with the American Convention. 280 252. Although the State affirmed that the family had been given unrestricted access to the investigation reopened in 2007, the Court notes that the Dominican Republic expressly indicated that this access has been limited by supposed “procedural confidentiality.” In addition, the Court notes that, in the proceedings before this Court, the State failed to submit a copy of the corresponding file, despite the Court’s express request (supra paras. 11, 12 and 76 and footnote 15). 253. The Court has established that access to the case file is a requirement sine qua non of the procedural intervention of the victim in any case in which he or she is an additional party or complainant under domestic law. 281 Although the Court has considered it admissible that, in certain cases, the measures taken during the preliminary investigation in the criminal proceedings may be kept confidential in order to ensure the effectiveness of the administration of justice, 282 this confidentiality may never be invoked to prevent the victim from having access to the file of a criminal case. The State’s powers to avoid the dissemination of the content of the proceedings, if appropriate, must be guaranteed by taking measures that are compatible with the exercise of the victim’s procedural rights. 283 277 As helpful evidence (supra para. 11 and note 15), the Court asked the State and the presumed victims’ representatives to provide: “information on the access of Mr. González Medina’s family to the investigation and the criminal proceedings before the National District Seventh Investigating Court and the Santo Domingo Review Chamber, as well as the investigation reopened in 2007. In particular, the representatives were asked to indicate what they know about the said reopening of the investigation.” 278 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 246, para. 227; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 247. 279 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 246, para. 227; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 247. 280 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 279, para. 233, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 247. 281 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 252. 282 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 45, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 252. 283 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 45, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 252. 78