Correctional Court No. 9- instead of seriously promoting the investigation and punishing those responsible, ended up incurring serious shortcomings, irregularities, and deliberate deviation of the investigation for more than 8 years. The pursuance of an accusatory hypothesis fabricated by state officials was only possible based on a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in charge of the investigation, which became a factor that resulted in the true causes of the attack and all the responsibilities involved not being investigated. 297. As indicated, the investigation carried out by the UFI AMIA, particularly since 2015, has contributed to correcting some shortcomings in the investigation, such as the one referring to the identification of the socalled victim 85 and the analysis of biological material relevant to the investigation. However, the main line of investigation promoted by the prosecutors has been based especially on intelligence reports, and they have not been the result of a diligent and exhaustive investigation. In this sense, it is necessary to carry out additional proceedings aimed at both strengthening said investigative hypothesis or any other additional or complementary hypothesis that are useful for clarifying the truth. 298. Finally, and despite the fact that there is a heightened duty of the State to identify the actions or omissions that constitute irregularities in the investigation and determine the corresponding responsibilities, the processes that have been followed in this regard have not constituted an effective remedy and have been extended for an unreasonable period. The Commission also observes that in all these years the next of kin of the victims have actively participated in the search for justice, without in any way obstructing the investigations. 299. The Commission emphasizes that the investigation that is the subject of this case has lasted for an unreasonable period, and its very meager progress is the result not only of state negligence but also of maneuvers aimed at concealing the truth. In these circumstances, and taking into account that the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or of their next of kin to obtain clarification on the fact that violated their rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent State bodies, 273 the Commission concludes that it has been the State's own action that has prevented the victims and their next of kin from seeing their right to know the truth satisfied through the investigation and criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Argentine State has violated its obligations established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. D. Rights to Access Information (articles 13, 1.1 and 2 of the Convention) and Judicial Protection (article 25 of the American Convention) 300. The right of access to information is a fundamental right expressly contemplated in Article 13 of the American Convention 274 and its exercise is particularly important not only for the full functioning of the democratic system but is also a precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights275. 301. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has determined that in a democratic society it is essential that state authorities abide by the principle of maximum disclosure, which establishes the presumption that all information is accessible, and that access to said information can only be denied under a restricted system of exceptions276. 302. For its part, the IACHR has indicated that the right of access to information comprises the interest of the victims and their next of kin, as well as society as a whole, to seek and obtain information on serious human I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 509. 274 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5. 275 I/A Court H.R., Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, paras. 154 to 157. 276 I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 92. 273 57