511. In this regard, the Court reiterates that anyone, including the next of kin of the victims of gross human rights violations, has the right to know the truth, according to Articles 1(1), 8(1), 25, as well as in certain circumstances Article 13, of the Convention 795 (supra para. 481). However, it considers that, in this case, the right to know the truth is subsumed basically in the right of the victims or their family members to obtain from the competent organs of the State the clarification of the acts that violated human right and the corresponding responsibilities, by the investigation and prosecution established by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, 796 which also constitutes a form of reparation. Consequently, in this case, the Court will not make an additional ruling with regard to the violation of the right to the truth alleged by the representatives. B.8) General conclusion 512. The Court assesses positively the efforts made to date in the individualization and prosecution of those presumably responsible in this case. It also underscores the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State in relation to its obligation to investigate the facts (supra para. 21.c). However, based on the above considerations, the Court finds that the State violated the guarantee of an ordinary, independent and impartial judge as regards the investigations into the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and the torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. The Court also finds that Colombia failed to comply with its obligation to open an immediate and effective investigation ex officio, and omitted to carry out the necessary search activities to discover the whereabouts of the disappeared and to clarify what happened, and did not act with due diligence during the initial investigation procedures and, to a lesser extent, in the investigations that are underway in the ordinary jurisdiction. Lastly, the Court has noted that the investigation into these facts has not respected the guarantee of a reasonable time. 513. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the forcibly disappeared victims, including the next of kin of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, and of the next of kin of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, identified in paragraph 539 of this Judgment, as well as in relation to Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of the next of kin of the forcibly disappeared victims, including the next of kin of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, and in relation to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino, Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis. XII OBLIGATION TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS TO LIFE AND TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY No. 166, para. 128, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 298. 795 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No.221, para. 243, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 220. 796 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 181, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 240. 180