developed the work plan with reference to field surveys specifically. Lastly, they alleged a complete absence of coordination between the various entities with a potential role in consolidating a search plan, such as the Office of the Prosecutor, the GRUBE, Legal Medicine, and especially the Search Unit for Missing Persons, whose relationship with and connection to the Office of the Prosecutor is tenuous with respect to this specific case. 82. The representatives concluded by asking the Court to declare the State responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that convention, as well as Article I(b) of the CIDFP. They also asked that the Court declare a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, specifically the right to know the truth about what happened to Mr. Tabares Toro. 83. The State acknowledged its international responsibility for violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument, as well as Article I(b) of the CIDFP—the latter starting May 12, 2005. B. Considerations of the Court 84. Given the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, there is no longer a dispute as to the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with its Article 1(1), or of Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro and his relatives: María Elena Toro Torres, Óscar de Jesús Tabares, Holmar de Jesús Gallego Márquez, María Bibiancy Tabares Toro, Jhon Fredy Tabares Giraldo, Leidy Julieth Gallego Toro, and María Isabel Gallego Toro. 85. The Court also notes that the representatives alleged the violation of the right to know the truth. They stated that because it has been over two decades since Mr. Tabares Toro disappeared, with no perpetrators identified or punished and his whereabouts not determined, impunity still prevails in this case. They added that the paltry search efforts have been unsuccessful, making it impossible to find the victim's remains. They stated that during that time, his relatives, especially his mother, have fought to find out the truth about what happened and to investigate and punish those responsible. They therefore argued that Mr. Tabares Toro's relatives had been denied the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, as well as the right to know the truth about what happened to their loved one, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention. 86. This Court has held that “everyone, including the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth [about those violations],” which means that they “should be informed of everything that happened regarding such violations.” 118 87. This Court's case law has also established the autonomy and broad nature of the right to truth, which is not established explicitly in the American Convention but is linked to several of its provisions. Depending on the context and circumstances of the case, the violation of this right can be related to different rights explicitly established in the Convention, 119 as is the case with the rights to judicial 118 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100. Similarly, Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, para. 134, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 114. 119 Cf. Case of the Massacre of the Village of Los Josefinos v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 114; Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 176; Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 220; Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368. para. 256; and Case of the Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 479. 21