Accords, which understood in light of the American Convention reveals a serious violation of the State’s international obligation to investigate and punish the grave human rights violations relating to the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, by preventing the survivors and the victims’ next of kin in this case from being heard by a judge, in keeping with the provisions of Article 8(1) of the American Convention and receiving judicial protection, in keeping with the right established in Article 25 of this instrument. 296. On the other hand, the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace has resulted in the installation and perpetuation of a situation of impunity owing the absence of investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the facts, thus failing to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention; the latter in relation to the obligation to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention. 477 Given their evident incompatibility with the American Convention, the provisions of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace that prevent the investigation and punishment of the grave human rights violations that were perpetrated in this case lack legal effects and, consequently, cannot continue to represent an obstacle to the investigation of the facts of this case and the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible, and they cannot have the same or a similar impact in other cases of grave violations of the human rights recognized in the American Convention that may have occurred during the armed conflict in El Salvador.478 F. Right to know the truth 297. The representatives affirmed that the right to the truth is an autonomous and independent right, and even though it is not declared explicitly in the text of the American Convention, it comprises the protections established in Articles 1(1), 8, 25 and 13 of the Convention. In this regard, they argued that, in the instant case, the State violated the right to the truth of the victims and their next of kin insofar as the massacres had been committed by State agents as part of a military strategy. Consequently, it was the State alone that possessed relevant information to establish the truth of what happened. However, it had abstained from providing this information to the next of kin of the victims killed, the surviving victims and Salvadoran society as a whole. In addition, after 1995, the State had not taken a single measure to establish the truth of what happened; therefore, they asked the Court to declare that El Salvador has violated the right to the truth to the detriment of the presumed victims in this case, which resulted in the violation of Articles 1(1), 8, 25 and 13 of the American Convention. In this regard, the Court reiterates its case law regarding the possibility that the presumed victims or their representatives may invoke rights other than those included in the merits report of the Commission (supra para. 182). 298. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention,479 the Court recalls that any person, including the next of kin of victims of grave human rights violations, has the right to know the truth, under Articles 1(1), 8(1) and 25 and also, in certain circumstances, Article 13 of the Convention;480 therefore, they and society in general must be informed of what happened.481 477 In light of Article 2 of the Convention, the obligation to adapt domestic law to the provisions of the Convention signifies that the State must adopt measures of two types; namely: (i) to eliminate the norms and practices of any nature that entail a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention, and (ii) to enact laws and implement practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 131. 478 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 44; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, para. 175; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 174, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 232. 479 The pertinent part of Article 13 of the Convention stipulates: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.” 480 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 243, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 173. In this regard, in the Case of Gomes Lund et al., the Court observed that, according to the facts of the case, the right to know the truth was related to an action filed by the next of kin to have access to certain information connected to the access to justice and to the right to seek and receive information recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention, so that it analyzed the said right under this article. Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 201. 98