b.4. Conclusion 114. Based on the foregoing, it can be observed that, during the investigation of the massacre of April 28 and 29, 1982, in the village of Los Josefinos, the State was responsible for a series of obstructions and failures of due diligence that have prevented the effective investigation, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible, and this has also violated the victims’ right to the truth. Regarding the right to the truth, the Court recalls that everyone, including the next of kin of victims of gross human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. Consequently, the victims’ family members and society must be informed of what happened in relation to those violations. Although the right to know the truth has basically been considered part of the right of access to justice, in reality this right to the truth is autonomous because it is very broad and its violation may impair different rights contained in the American Convention depending on the particular context and circumstances of the case.198 115. The Court also notes that this clear absence of investigation and criminal prosecution of the facts has had a direct effect on the investigation of the numerous gross human rights violations perpetrated at the time of the massacre. To date, it has also prevented making a differentiated analysis of the impact that those violations had on the different groups in a situation of vulnerability within the community, such as the children and women in this case, and this has also rendered the specific violations that these groups suffered invisible. 116. Taking the preceding considerations into account, as well as the body of evidence in this case, the Court finds that Guatemala is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and also of the right to know the truth about the events, to the detriment of the persons identified in Annexes III and VIII of this judgment, and also for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as well as the right to know the truth about the events, to the detriment of the persons indicated in Annex VII of this judgment. VIII-3 PERSONAL INTEGRITY199 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 117. The Commission determined that the next of kin of the victims of the massacre are, in turn, victims of the violation of their right to personal integrity owing to the pain and anguish they suffered and continue to suffer. It added that, in this case, no meaningful and impartial investigation of the events was initiated ex officio and without delay, nor had there been a thorough investigation to uncover the truth of what happened or effective judicial proceedings to identify and punish those responsible. It concluded that the State had violated the right to personal integrity, and the rights of the family and of the child established in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 17 and 19 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the survivors and the families of the victims of the massacre in this case. 118. The representatives argued that Guatemala had violated the right to personal integrity of the Cf. Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 220, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 256. 198 199 Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 37