116 investigation and prosecution established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.”82 As this Court has pointed out, only if all circumstances of the violations involved are clarified can it be considered that the State has provided the victim and his next of kin effective remedy and that it has complied with its general obligation to investigate.83 76. The right that every person has to the truth has been developed in international human rights law84 and, as this Court has stated previously, the possibility of the victim’s next of kin knowing what happened to the victim85 and, if that be the case, the whereabouts of the victim’s mortal remains,86 is a means of reparation, and therefore an expectation regarding which the State must satisfy the next of kin of the victims and society as a whole.87 77. Finally, the State has the obligation, according to the general duty set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to ensure that these grave violations do not occur again. Therefore, the State must take all steps necessary to attain this goal. Preventive measures and those against recidivism begin by revealing and recognizing the atrocities of the past, as was ordered by the Court in its judgment on the merits. Society has the right to know the truth regarding such crimes, so as to be capable of preventing them in the future. 78. Therefore, the Court reiterates that the State has the obligation to investigate the facts that generated the violations of the American Convention in the instant 82 Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 6, para. 201. 83 See Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. December 8, 1995 Judgment. C Series No. 22, para. 58. 84 See, for example, United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Communication No. 107/1981, decision of 21 July 1983; United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 49th Session, Informe final revisado acerca de la cuestión de la impunidad de los autores de violaciones de los derechos humanos (derechos civiles y políticos) preparado por L. Joinet, UN General Assembly Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 45th Session, Estudio relativo al derecho de restitución, indemnización y rehabilitación a las víctimas de violaciones flagrantes de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, Final report submitted by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub .2/1993/8. 85 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 69; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 100; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 200. 86 See Castillo Páez Case, November 3, 1997 Judgment. C Series No. 34, para. 90; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). January 29, 1997 Judgment. C Series No. 31, para. 58; and Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 38, para. 69. 87 See Castillo Páez Case, supra note 6, para. 90. In this regard, see also United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 49th Session, Informe final revisado acerca de la cuestión de la impunidad de los autores de violaciones de los derechos humanos (derechos civiles y políticos) preparado por L. Joinet, UN General Assembly Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; and United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 45th Session, Estudio relativo al derecho de restitución, indemnización y rehabilitación a las víctimas de violaciones flagrantes de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, Final report submitted by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub .2/1993/8.