36 depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the Government.”58 78. The Court has repeatedly stated that the family members of victims of serious human rights violations, have the right to know the truth about such violations. This right to the truth, once recognized and exercised in a specific situation, it constitutes an important means of reparation for victims and their next of kin and creates an expectation that the State must fulfill. On the other hand, knowing the truth enables Peruvian society to explore possible avenues to prevent this type of violations in the future.59 79. Therefore, the victims’ next of kin have the right ─and the State has the duty─ to have what happened to them effectively investigated by government authorities, that the alleged perpetrators be prosecuted and, if applicable, punished as due, and that the damages sustained by such next of kin be redressed.60 80. In response to Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino’s forced disappearance, the first remedy the State should have afforded was an effective investigation and judicial proceedings leading to discovery of the facts, punishment of those responsible and appropriate compensation. This Court has established that the investigation States must initiate is to be undertaken ex officio, without delay and with due diligence,61 which means that the investigating body must take, within a reasonable time, all such steps as may be necessary to, at least, ascertain the facts. 81. The State recognized that it failed to initiate an effective investigation as soon as Mr. Gomez-Palomino’s forced disappearance was reported, in violation of the obligation arising from Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention (supra para. 71). Peru claimed that this state of affairs prevailed only until the commencement of the transition towards democracy (supra para. 71). However, according to the body of evidence and the acquiescence to the facts by the State (supra para. 30), the Court notices with great concern the very limited steps taken by the State since 2002, when the investigation was reopened by the Office of the Attorney General, to date. 82. The Court finds that it has been established (supra paras. 54.14 to 54.16 and 54.19) that, in 2001, the Fiscalía Provincial Especializada de Lima (Specialized Provincial Office of the Prosecutor of Lima) was ordered to reopen the investigation into Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s forced disappearance. In the course of said investigation the statement of one of the members of the “Colina Group” was taken, who deposed 58 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 219; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 146; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, para. 61. 59 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 297; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 203 and 204; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 51, para. 259. 60 Cf. Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 205; Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, para. 64; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 51, para. 187. 61 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 223; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 145; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, para. 65.