328. The Court finds it pertinent to recall that, pursuant to its consistent case law, everyone, including the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. Consequently, the victims’ next of kin and society in general should be informed of everything that happened in relation to such violations. 367 Even though, fundamentally, the right to know the truth has been included in the right of access to justice, 368 the right to know the truth is very broad and its violations may affect different rights recognized in the American Convention, 369 depending on the particular context and circumstances of the case. In this regard, the Court reiterates that this right is included in and protected by Articles 1(1), 8(1), 25, and also – in certain circumstances – Article 13 of the Convention, 370 as in the case of Gomes Lund et al. v. Brazil. 329. In the instant case, the Court notes that the arguments concerning the presumed violation of the right to the truth include two main elements: (i) the alleged violation of this right owing to the impunity of the detention, torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog, and the dissemination of a false version of the facts, and (ii) the presumed lack of access to the files of the DOI-CODI/SP. 330. The Court notes that, indeed, Brazil has taken various steps to satisfy the right to the truth of the victims in this case and of society in general. The Court assesses positively the creation of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances, and the National Truth Commission and their respective reports. Previously, the Court has found that this type of effort contributes to the construction and preservation of the historical memory, the clarification of the facts and the determination of institutional, social and political responsibilities during certain historical periods of a society. 371 Nevertheless, pursuant to this Court’s consistent case law, 372 the “historical truth” that may result from this type of effort Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 220. 367 Cf., inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 181; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, 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, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 148; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of Novembr 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, paras. 243 and 244; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, para. 117, Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities in the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 260, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, para. 220. 368 369 In this regard, in its study on the right to the truth, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights indicated that different international declarations and instruments have recognized the right to know the truth linked to the right to obtain and request information, the right to justice, the obligation to combat impunity in the face of gross human rights violations, the right to an effective judicial remedy, and the right to privacy and family life. 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 February 8, 2006. 370 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 243, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 220, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 511. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 128, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 297. 371 372 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 150; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 234; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 179, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities in the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 287. 86