to merely facilitate a search or to claim they lack information; rather, they must take all possible measures to find the victim 132 and inform family members and society as a whole. 133 91. The Court notes in this case that although Colombia’s acknowledgment of responsibility did not encompass the right to know the truth, the State did expressly acknowledge its responsibility for the failure to diligently investigate the events within a reasonable timeframe and the failure to search for Mr. Tabares Toro, as has already been established in this judgment (supra paras. 16 and 27). In addition, the Court holds that the representatives’ arguments are relevant for assessing Colombia's responsibility as regards the right to the truth. Indeed, it is evident from the established facts, the failure to find the alleged victim, and the State’s acknowledgment of its failure to investigate and to exercise due diligence within a reasonable timeframe that the State has not succeeded in determining the truth of what happened. Moreover, the army members involved in the events gave differing accounts about what happened to Mr. Tabares Toro, which have not been confirmed, among them that Mr. Tabares had attacked his superiors, that he had deserted, and that he had joined the FARC guerrillas (supra paras. 42 and 46). 92. This Court also notes that Ms. Toro Torres made at least seven requests for information on her son’s whereabouts and on the related investigations. However, she received only one response, which asserted that because serviceman Tabares had allegedly fled, an investigation had not been opened into his alleged disappearance (supra para. 52). The Court holds that the failure of the relevant civilian and military authorities to respond and to undertake investigative efforts to locate Mr. Tabares Toro constitutes a violation of the right to truth of the family of the alleged victim, in conjunction with the right to information access. 93. The Court concludes that at the time of this judgment, the truth about what happened has not been determined and that the right to the truth will not be guaranteed for the victim's relatives as long as this continues. Colombia is therefore responsible for violating the right to the truth to the detriment of 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. 94. For all of these reasons, and in view of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and the implications thereof, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same, as well as 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. In addition, the State violated the aforementioned relatives’ right to know the truth, based on the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, and freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Articles 8(1), 25(1), and 13(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. VII.3 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, THE PROTECTION OF HONOR, THE PROTECTION OF FAMILY, AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF THE CONVENTION 134 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 95. The Commission noted that Óscar Iván Tabares Toro's relatives have experienced profound suffering and distress due to the lack of information about what happened, the failure to locate Mr. Tabares Toro, and the impunity that has prevailed for over two decades. The Commission therefore 132 133 134 Cf. Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 136. Cf. Case of the Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 479. Articles 5, 11, 17, 19, and 1(1) of the American Convention, respectively. 23