of the right to freedom of association can lead to an impairment of freedom of expression. Despite the State’s acknowledgement of the violation of the latter, the Court considers that, in order to constitute a violation of the right to freedom of expression, it would be necessary to prove that this had been impaired above and beyond the harm intrinsic to the declared violation of the right to freedom of association, and that has not happened in this case. Consequently, it is not in order to declare that the State violated Edgar Fernando García’s right to freedom of thought and expression as part of the reason for his forced disappearance. VIII-2 OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE THE FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF EDGAR FERNANDO GARCÍA 123. In this chapter, the Court will summarize the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the parties, and will then rule on the alleged violations of Articles 8(1) 185 and 25(1) 186 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument and to Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, 187 to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García, as well as the alleged violations of the obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. The Court will also rule on the alleged violation of the right of access to information and the alleged failure to comply with Article 2 of the Convention in this chapter. 188 124. The Court recalls that, owing to its competence ratione temporis, it can rule only on the facts relating to the investigations that took place after March 9, 1987 (supra para. 26). The facts that occurred prior to that date will be taken into account as background information in the case, but this Court is unable to determine legal consequences in relation to the State’s alleged international responsibility. A) Arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the parties 125. The Commission indicated that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García and of his family members, because it had failed to conduct “a serious and diligent investigation, within a reasonable time, and had not ensured the rights to the truth, justice, and reparation for his next of kin.” It also indicated that, owing to the victim’s disappearance, several applications for habeas corpus were filed without obtaining any response, and although the family “risked denouncing the facts formally, this did not lead to real actions by the judicial 185 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[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.” 186 Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes 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.” 187 Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons stipulates that: “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake: […] (b) to punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories.” 188 Article 2 of the American Convention establishes that: “[w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 44