32 120. The State affirmed that the representatives had not indicated specific facts to support the violation of the right to freedom of expression, so it considered that the accusation was without grounds. It added that, “nothing in the text or spirit of Article 13 of the Convention […] allows it to be understood that, when the State fails to provide information to someone, the latter is prevented from expressing himself freely.” Lastly, it emphasized that Mr. Portugal’s next of kin had received all the information gathered and available in relation to his disappearance and death. 121. Regarding the first allegation relating to the alleged violation of Heliodoro Portugal’s right to freedom of expression, the Court observes that, in the chapter on preliminary objections, it had declared that it did not have competence to rule in that respect (supra para. 36). 122. With regard to the second allegation of the representatives relating to the violation of the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Portugal’s next of kin,78 the Court considers that the refusal to provide information on the whereabouts of the victims constitutes one of the elements that comprise a forced disappearance. The Court examined this violation in the preceding chapter and, in addition, it will examine the allegations related to the presumed lack of access to justice of the next of kin in the next chapter. Accordingly, the Court finds that the facts indicated by the representatives in this regard are dealt with in the said chapters. VIII ARTICLES 8(1) (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)79 AND 25(1) (JUDICIAL PROTECTION)80 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 123. The Commission alleged that, taken as a whole, the actions of the State authorities had contributed to the failure to investigate, pursue, capture, prosecute and convict those responsible for the forced disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal, which constitutes a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Specifically, it indicated that the State failed to conduct sufficiently rigorous investigations and domestic proceedings, because it disregarded lines of investigation and possible participants referred to by numerous witnesses who testified before the Third Prosecutor’s Office and the Panama Truth Commission. The Commission also argued that the start of the proceedings was delayed excessively and that the procedural actions were subsequently suspended or closed on several occasions. Consequently, it indicated that the ineffectiveness of the proceedings can be clearly inferred from the fact that they exceeded 78 Despite the above, the Court considers it pertinent to emphasize, as it has on other occasions, that the scope of Article 13 of the Convention encompasses both the right to freedom of expression and the right to have access to information. Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30; “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 64; Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 53, and Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 76. 79 Article 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the Convention establishes: “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 80 Article 25(1) (Judicial Protection) of the Convention indicates that: “[e]veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.”