80 the clinic in the village of Chichupac occurred, approximately 30 to 35 years since the other events of this case took place, and more than two decades since the first complaints were received, yet none of the investigations analyzed in this chapter have gone beyond the investigative stage. In other words, the case remains in total impunity and, therefore, the Court considers it evident that the investigation has not taken place within a reasonable time. 260. In addition, this Court has determined that everyone, including the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. Consequently, the victims’ families and society must be informed of everything that happened in relation to said violations. 321 Although the right to know the truth has been fundamentally framed within the right of access to justice, 322 it has a broad nature and its violation may affect different rights enshrined in the American Convention, 323 depending on the particular context and circumstances of the case. 261. The Court has considered the content of the right to know the truth in its jurisprudence, particularly in cases of forced disappearance, since the right to know the whereabouts of the disappeared victims constitutes an essential component of the right to know the truth. However, in this case, the whereabouts of the disappeared persons remain unknown and, as noted, some remains recovered during the exhumations have not yet been identified (supra para. 147). Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court declares the violation of the right to know the truth, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of forced disappearance. In this case, as in others, said violation is framed within the right of access to justice. B.4. Conclusions 262. The Court considers that, in accordance with the American Convention in force at the time of the massacres, the State had the obligation to investigate with due diligence all the facts of the instant case, an obligation that was pending at the time of its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. The State reaffirmed this obligation when it deposited the instrument of ratification of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Convention of Belém do Pará, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (supra paras. 215 and 250). Therefore, the State should have ensured compliance therewith from the moment of ratification. 263. More than 30 years after the events occurred and 23 years after the first complaints were filed (supra para. 259), the investigations opened into the facts of this case are still in the investigation stage. There are long delays and omissions in the collection of evidence, and in most of the files examined there are no actions aimed at determining those responsible for the events, or else, only inquiries regarding members of the PAC were carried out, without any member of the Guatemalan army having been investigated. This, despite the fact that on repeated occasions 321 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 243 322 Cf. See inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 181; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 48; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 148; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 20056. Series C No. 162, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paras. 243 and 244, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 117. 323 In its study on the right to know the truth, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that various international declarations and instruments have recognized the right to know the truth in relation to the right to obtain and request information, the right to justice, the duty to combat impunity in relation to human rights violations, the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to private and family life. Furthermore, in relation to the victims’ next of kin, it has been linked to the right to integrity (mental health) of the victims’ family members, the right to obtain reparation in cases of serious human rights violations, the right not to be subject to torture or mistreatment and, in certain circumstances, the right of children to receive special protection. Cf. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Study on the right to the truth, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/91 of January 9, 2006.