38 the need to repair the violation of the right to know the truth in the specific case140. The right to know the truth has been also recognized by several treaties of the United Nations and recently, by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS)141. 119. The Tribunal deems that the right to know the truth represents a necessary effect for it is important that a society knows the truth about the facts of serious human rights violations. This is also a fair expectation that the State is required to satisfy,142 on the one hand, by means of the obligation to investigative human rights violations and, on the other hand, by the public dissemination of the results of the criminal and investigative procedures.143 The right to know the truth requires from the State the procedural determination of the patterns of joint action and of all those who participated in various ways in said violations and their corresponding responsibilities.144 Moreover, in compliance with the obligation to guarantee the right to know the truth, States may establish Truth Commissions, which can contribute to build and safeguard historical memory, to clarify the events and to determine institutional, social and political responsibilities in certain periods of time of a society.145 120. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the representatives limited to point out that the right to the truth is connected “to a wider ranking of rights" and they quoted several international treaties, related reports and a case before the Inter-American Commission, but they did not relate it to the facts of the instant case. Consequently, the elements presented are insufficient to prove the alleged violation of said provision. B. On the lack of a prompt and effective investigation of a criminal nature 121. The Commission alleged that the State “breached its obligation to conduct a proper, effective investigation into the abduction and forced disappearance” of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, in violation of Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention. 140 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 181; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 190 and 191; Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala., supra note 59, para . 103. 141 Cf. inter alia, Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1); Report on the update of the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, by Professor Diane Orenlicher (E/CN.4/2005/102, of February 18, 2005); Study on the Right to the Truth, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/91 of January 9, 2006); OAS General Assembly. Resolutions on the Right to the Truth, AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06), AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVIIO/07) and AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIII-O/08). 142 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 181; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 190; Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala., supra note 59, para . 103. 143 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras V. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 67; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 194, Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 58, para. 247; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 233. 144 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 13, para. 195; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 38, para. 129. 145 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 38, para. 128.