57 205. On the other hand, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the State had not carried out the necessary steps to learn what happened to Florencio Chitay and to determine his whereabouts. The aforementioned has not permitted his next to kin to know what happened or to end the suffering and harm caused by these facts. 206. The Tribunal reiterated that the right to know the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain from the competent authorities of the State the clarification of the facts of violations and the corresponding perpetrators, by way of an investigation and judgment that is foreseen in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention,231 which constitutes a form of reparation.232 207. As a consequence, given that until the current date the whereabouts of Florencio Chitay are unknown and the State has not informed on the steps of an investigation taken to locate him, this Tribunal finds that the State has not conducted an effective investigation in a manner that guarantees the right of the next of kin of Florencio Chitay Nech to know the truth about what happened to him and his whereabouts. 208. Finally, the representatives alleged that at the beginning of the investigation, the judicial authorities lost the documentation presented by the next of kin of Mr. Chitay Nech, which was requested again from Pedro Chitay. This was not disputed by the State. In this regard, this Court considers that said situation constitutes a lack of diligence attributable to the State, given that the omission of the public employees regarding the fulfillment of their inherent duties cannot be blamed on the victims, undermining the State responsibility. 209. Due to the foregoing, the Court finds that the State has not fulfilled its duty to investigate ex oficio, within a reasonable time period, and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner, the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech, so as to identify, judge and eventually punish those responsible for the facts and to, in this way, avoid impunity, nor has the State carried out the necessary steps to look for and locate the whereabouts of the alleged victim. Besides, the State has not acted with due diligence to guarantee the access to justice of the alleged victims. As a consequence, the Tribunal concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection consecrated in Articled 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) to the detriment of Encarnación, Pedro, Eliseo, Estermerio, and María Rosaura, all with the last name of Chitay Rodriguez, as well as the lack of fulfillment of the obligation consecrated in Article I(b) of the ICFDP. 3. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention 210. The Commission alleged that the apparatus of the State of Guatemala did not adopt the necessary measures to make effective the rights and liberties established in the Convention, in accordance with Article 2 of the same, to the detriment of Florencio Chitay Nech. 211. In its brief of motions and pleadings, the representatives manifested that “in Guatemala, no law exists that sanctions the crime of disappearance per se” and they 231 Cf. Case Gómez Palomino V. Perú, supra note 84, para. 78; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 180, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, paras. 149 and 151. 232 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 32, para. 181; Case Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala, supra note 40, para. 103, and Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 179.