15 VIII RIGHT TO THE TRUTH AND JUDICIAL GUARANTEES IN THE RULE OF LAW The Commission’s arguments 45. The Commission alleged that the right to truth is founded in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, insofar as they are both “instrumental” in the judicial establishment of the facts and circumstances that surrounded the violation of a fundamental right. It also indicated that this right has its roots in Article 13(1) of the Convention, because that article recognizes the right to seek and receive information. With regard to that article, the Commission added that the State has the positive obligation to guarantee essential information to preserve the rights of the victims, to ensure transparency in public administration and the protection of human rights. The State’s arguments 46. The State did not contest the Commission’s arguments in this respect and indicated that its human rights strategy was based on “recognizing responsibilities, but, above all, proposing integrated procedures for attending to the victims based on three fundamental elements: the right to truth, the right to justice and the right to obtain fair reparation”. * * * The considerations of the Court 47. In this case, it is evident that the surviving victims, their next of kin and the next of kin of the victims who died were prevented from knowing the truth about the events that occurred in Barrios Altos. 48. Despite this, in the circumstances of the instant case, the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.3 49. Therefore, this matter has been resolved, since it has been indicated (supra para. 39) that Peru violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, with regard to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. IX OPENING OF THE REPARATIONS STAGE 3 Cfr. Bámaca Vélasquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201.