322. They also indicated that clarification of the perpetrators and the circumstances surrounding the practice of the crimes was essential, because the truth, of itself, was an integral component of the delivery of justice, and not merely a sub-product of the trials or other prosecutorial measures. 323. In this regard, the representatives understood that the Brazilian State’s systematic refusal to hand over the military documents that could clarify the circumstances of Mr. Herzog’s death and identify the perpetrators and the masterminds constituted a violation of the right to the truth and an obstruction of the right to justice in violation of Articles 5, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 324. The State, in relation to the dissemination of a false version of Mr. Herzog’s death, argued that the judgment in the 1976 declaratory action had affirmed that the version of suicide had not been proved. Similarly, the request for the opening of a police investigation in 1992, based on the judgment in the declaratory action revealed that the State authorities no longer considered that the version of suicide was tenable. It indicated that the rectification of the death certificate in 2013 did not mean that the State’s version of suicide had persisted until then, and that, in 2012, in the State’s answering brief to the Commission in relation to the admission of the petition in this case, it had acknowledged responsibility for the arbitrary imprisonment and death of Vladimir Herzog. 325. Regarding the lack of access to the military files, the State argued that this fact had not been submitted by the Commission, and therefore the Court should not examine it; also, the allegations were generic. Despite this, the State clarified that an investigative procedure had been conducted within the Armed Forces to determine irregularities in the destruction of public documents from the period from 1964 to 1990, reaching the conclusion that there had been no irregularities. It indicated that the State was unable to produce negative evidence in the sense that files were not being concealed and that, in any case, this was not applicable to the case of Vladimir Herzog, because the circumstances of his death had been clarified since the court’s judgment in the 1976 declaratory action, and also in the analysis made by the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances, and finally in the Report of the National Truth Commission. Additionally, the petitioners had not exhausted domestic remedies, because they had not filed an application for habeas data. 326. In relation to impunity as an obstacle to knowing the truth, the State understood that this right was subsumed in the right of the victim and the next of kin to obtain clarification of the facts and the respective responsibilities from the State’s competent organs; in other words, access to justice. However, the State argued that it had taken diverse steps in order to identify the truth of what had occurred. 327. The State argued that Article 2 of the Convention revealed that the adoption of public administrative and legislative policies should be entrusted, first, to the democratically elected representatives of the people who, in turn, were subject to domestic law and the Constitution. It therefore asked the Court to recognize that, in light of Article 2 of the Convention, the State had the right to implement such policies in accordance with its “reasonable margin of appreciation,” with due discretionary powers to choose the most appropriate means to ensure that the rights protected by the Convention were effective. It indicated that the recognition of that flexibility would not affect the inter-American system, because the Court was able, through control of conventionality, to assess and censure the measures taken by the State. B. Considerations of the Court 85