5 III. RIGHT TO THE TRUTH 17. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated that the forced disappearance of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez entailed a violation of the right to the truth of the victim's next of kin and society in general. As the Court has summarized, this right would have “a collective nature, which includes the right of society to 'have access to essential information for the development of democratic systems', and a particular nature, as the right of the victims' next of kin to know what has happened to their loved ones, which permits a form of reparation” (para. 197). 18. The right to the truth has been examined from two angles, which imply the same -or a very similar- consideration: to know the reality about certain facts. Based on this knowledge a juridical, political or moral consequence will be constructed of a diverse nature. On the one hand, that right is assigned to society as a whole; on the other, the right is attributed to the direct or indirect victim of conduct that violates human rights3. 19. In its first acceptation, the so-called right to the truth covers a legitimate demand of society to know what has happened, generically or specifically, during a certain period of collective history, usually a stage dominated by authoritarianism, when the channels of knowledge, information and reaction characteristic of democracy are not operating adequately or sufficiently. In the second, the right to know the reality of what has happened constitutes a human right that is immediately extended to the judgment on merits and the reparations that arise from this. 20. In the Court's judgment to which this opinion is associated, the Court has confined itself to the individual perspective of the right to the truth, which is the one that is strictly linked to the Convention, because it is a human right. Accordingly, in this case, this right is contained or subsumed in another that is also a subject of this judgment: that corresponding to the investigation of the violating facts and the prosecution of those responsible. Thus, the victim - or his heirs - has the right that the investigations that are or will be conducted will lead to knowing what “really” happened4. The individual right to the truth follows this reasoning, which is supported by the Convention and, based on this, by the Court's recognition in its judgment. 21. Furthermore, the satisfaction of the right to the truth that corresponds to the victims, through the public investigation of the facts and prosecution of those responsible - as the Court has ordered in its decisions in this judgment - also allows society's demand to know what has happened to be fulfilled. This situation is similar 3 cf. The administration of justice and the human rights of detainees. Final report on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political) prepared by L. Joinet pursuant to decision 1996/119 of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities - E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, 26 June 1997, para. 17, where a distinction is made between "the right of any individual victim or his nearest and dearest to know what happened, [which is] a the right to the truth'' and "the right to know [which] is also a collective right". 4 cf. Study on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Final report presented by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1993/8, 2 July 1993; the study notes that Chile has put great emphasis on revealing the truth about the most serious human rights violations relating to the right to life. The reparation was and is focused principally on the vindication of the victims of such serious violations and on compensation for their next of kin, para. 117.