the trial judge stated that he has maintained constant communication with the EAAF, 249 as far as this process is concerned, there is no evidence that the alleged victims have been duly informed so they can participate, be aware of, and witness, where applicable, the steps that could have been taken to arrive at the conclusions contained in the note. 219. The Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons, approved by the Committee against Enforced Disappearance, establish that the victims, their representatives, their lawyers, and the persons authorized by them have the right to participate in the search efforts and access “information on the action taken and on the progress and results obtained,” which entails the duty for the authorities “to provide regular and incidental information on the measures adopted [...] and on any obstacles” that arise. 250 220. All this is understood to be included in demands for the right to know the truth, which, in addition to covering the right of the relatives of a victim of forced disappearance to know their fate and, if applicable, the location of the remains, 251 also includes the right to be informed of the proceedings carried out and the results obtained, 252 including any hypothesis or conclusion that may arise, in the highest possible detail and in accordance with the technical and scientific specifications that the subject merits. In any case, with respect to the rights of the alleged victims, it is the Court’s view that the international proceeding is not the suitable forum for them to learn such information. On this issue, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has also affirmed that the right to the truth in relation to forced disappearances, refers—among other elements—to “the right to know about the progress and results of an investigation [with regard to] the fate or the whereabouts of the disappeared persons,” entailing for the State the obligation to “have the results of these investigations communicated to the interested parties.” 253 221. This Court has indicated that although the right to know the truth has been fundamentally framed within the right to access to justice, 254 its nature is broad and, therefore, violations of it may affect different rights enshrined in the American Convention, depending Cf. Order of July 15, 2021 issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume XIX, evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, folios 21246 and 21247). 250 Cf. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons, UN Doc. CED/C/7, May 8, 2019, Principles 5(1) and 5(2). 251 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, par. 181; Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 240, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 87. See, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 20, 2006, Article 24(2). 252 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 260, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 299. 253 Cf. Human Rights Council, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearance, January 26, 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/16/48, pars. 1 and 5. The Human Rights Committee has also indicated in cases of forced disappearances that it is the State's obligation to provide relatives with "detailed information" on the investigation, in regards both to what happened and the fate of the remains of the disappeared persons. Cf. Human Rights Committee, inter alia, Tikanath and Ramhari Kandel v. Nepal, UN Doc. CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015, Communication No. 2560/2015, August 16, 2019, par. 9; Midiam Iricelda Valdez Cantú and María Hortencia Rivas Rodrígez v. Mexico, UN Doc. CCPR/C/127/D/2766/2, Communication No. 2766/2016, December 23, 2019, para. 14, and Malika and Merouane Bendjael v. Algeria, UN Doc. CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016, Communication No. 2893/2016, November 3, 2020, para. 10. See also Commission on Human Rights, Report of the independent expert to update the set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, February 8, 2005, Principle 34, and Commission on Human Rights, Report of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, Study on the right to the truth, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/91, January 9, 2006, para. 28. 254 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, par. 181; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, par. 201; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra, par. 48; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Chile, supra, par. 148; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, par. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, pars. 243 and 244; Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, par. 260; Case of Vasquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 165; Case of Guachala Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 213, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 88. 249 58