protected by its Article 13(1).149 111. In relation to the above, the Court has noted that, by expressly stipulating the right to seek and receive information, Article 13 of the Convention protects the right of all individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions established in the Convention.150 Consequently, this Article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a justification when, for any reason permitted by the Convention, the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a specific case.151 The law also protects the two dimensions, individual and social, of the right to freedom of thought and expression that must be guaranteed simultaneously by the State.152 In contexts of forced disappearance, the right of access to information requires the active participation of all the authorities involved. It is not enough to provide or allege the absence of information to guarantee the right of access to information; rather, efforts to establish the whereabouts of the victim must be exhausted.153 112. In this case, the State recognized the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, qualifying the actions aimed at investigating and sanctioning the material perpetrators of the disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo as being insufficient. As warned (supra, para. 25), there is no dispute regarding such violation. 113. However, the State argued that Mr. Núñez Naranjo had been a victim of forced disappearance, and, in this sense, the acknowledgment made did not refer to the immediate search efforts that corresponded to the authorities, based on Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, nor to the alleged violation of the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the forced disappearance, derived from Article I (b) of the IACFDP. 114. Given that it has been established that Fredy Núñez Naranjo was a victim of forced disappearance, there is no doubt that the rights provided for in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, with respect to him and his family, include not only the investigation of what happened and the punishment of those responsible; but also, the execution of diligent and immediate search actions aimed at establishing the whereabouts of the victim and the consequent guarantee of the right to the truth. 115. According to the proven facts (supra para. 47), the State issued two police reports on July 15, 2001, the day Mr. Núñez Naranjo was arrested and subsequently kidnapped. Three days later, a police officer went to the community of Puñachizag, where he took a statement claiming that Fredy Núñez allegedly escaped from the jail cell where he was being held (supra para. 48). 116. On August 15th, the statements of two police officers were received. One of them specifically 149 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, supra, para. 200, and Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia,, supra, para. 479. 150 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 77, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132. 151 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 77 and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132. 152 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 67, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132. 153 Cf. Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 136. -33-