guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8 and 25 respectively, 120 or the right of access to information, protected by Article 13. 121 88. The Court has noted the importance of the right to the truth with respect to forced disappearances. 122 Fulfilling this right is in the interests not only of the families of the forcibly disappeared but also of society as a whole, which is thereby aided in the prevention of these kinds of violations in the future. 123 The right to the truth is broadly related to the State’s obligation to take steps to clarify the facts of violations and to identify the perpetrators. 124 89. This Court has also held in its case law that the right to know the whereabouts of disappeared persons is an essential component of the right to know the truth 125 about what happened to loved ones.126 In this regard, the Court has stressed the autonomous nature of the obligation to search for and locate disappeared persons; 127 this obligation shall be fulfilled in an effective, comprehensive, appropriate, and diligent manner. 128 90. By expressly stipulating the right to seek and receive information, Article 13 of the Convention protects the right of all individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions established in the Convention. 129 Consequently, this article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a justification when, for any reason permitted by the Convention, the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a specific case. 130 It also protects the two dimensions—individual and social—of the right to freedom of thought and expression that must be guaranteed simultaneously by the State. 131 In cases of forced disappearance, the right to access to information requires the active participation of all authorities involved. In order to ensure the right to information access, it is not enough for the authorities 120 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181; Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 213; and Case of the Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 479. 121 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 200; and Case of the Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 479. 122 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, para. 156. 123 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 78, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 157. 124 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 80, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 157. 125 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 80; Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 160; Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 110; and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 157. 126 Cf. Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 121. 127 Cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 75, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 121. 128 See: Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons, U.N. Doc. CED/C/7, May 8, 2019, Principles 1, 4–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 121. 129 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 77, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132. 130 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 77, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132. 131 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 67, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 132. 22