44 149. The Court considers that in a democratic society the truth on grave human rights violations must be known. This is a fair expectation that the State must satisfy159, on the one hand, through the obligation to investigate the human rights violations, and on the other hand, through the public disclosure of the results of the criminal and investigation processes160. This requires the State to procedurally determine the patterns of joint action and of all of the people who in some manner participated in said violations, and their corresponding responsibility161, as well as to redress the victims of the case. * * * 150. The representatives claimed that the “impunity and lack of complete and true information of that occurred in the massacre” has caused the State’s violation of the right to the truth of the victims in the instant case, contained in Articles 1(1), 8(1), 13 and 25 of the American Convention. The Commission and the State did not comment on this issue. 151. In this regard, the Court has considered that within the framework of Articles 1(1), 8 and 25 of the Convention, the victims or their next of kin have the right, and the States the obligation, to have the facts effectively investigated by the State authorities, and to know the results of the investigation. The Court calls to mind that the right to know the truth is included in the rights of the victim or their next of kin to obtain from the competent organs of the State an elucidation on the facts of the violation and corresponding responsibilities, through the investigation and prosecution enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention162. Therefore, in this case the Court will not adjudge on the representatives’ claim of the alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention. * * * 152. Based on the foregoing, the Court verifies that the Las Dos Erres Massacre was part of a systematic context of massive human rights violations in Guatemala, in which multiple massacres occurred. Given the magnitude of the massacre, as well as the generalized context of violence exerted by the State, it is evident that the State must seriously investigate all of the allegedly responsible parties, including the participation by high officials and State employees, as well as locating and identifying those deceased. The actions of the State’s judges and the authorities’ lack of willingness and interest have prevented the victims’ access to justice, converting the judicial apparatus into a system indifferent to impunity. 159 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 30, para. 181; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 190, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 119. 160 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 67; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 194, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 119. 161 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 34, para. 195; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 102, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 119. 162 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No 136, para. 78; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 148, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 34, para. 147.