175. According to the Historical Clarification Commission, this absence of information had an adverse impact on the fulfilment of its mandate, so that it was unable, inter alia, to determine the precise chain of command regarding the forced disappearances committed during the conflict (supra para. 55). 176. Bearing in mind that the events of this case occurred in the context of a noninternational armed conflict, the clarification of the truth about what happened acquires special relevance. The Court recalls that everyone, including the next of kin of the victims of gross human rights violations, has the right to know the truth; hence, they and society as a whole must be informed of what happened. 261 The Court also considers it pertinent to reiterate, as it has in other cases, that States may establish truth commissions, which contribute to the construction and preservation of the historical memory, the clarification of facts, and the determination of institutional, social and political responsibilities during certain historical periods of a society. 262 Even when these commissions involve determinations of the truth that complement each other, because they each have their own meaning and scope, as well as specific possibilities and limits that depend on the context in which they are created and on the particular cases and circumstances they analyze, 263 the Court has established that they do not replace the State's obligation to establish the truth through judicial proceedings. 264 177. In the instant case, despite the limitations described as regards obtaining information (supra para. 174), the Historical Clarification Commission had sufficient evidence to establish that what happened to Mr. García constituted a forced disappearance committed by State agents, specifically members of the Special Operations Brigade of the National Police (BROE), who had injured him at the time of his arrest, following which he had been kept in secret detention centers (supra para. 68). Furthermore, this historical truth, established by the CEH in 1999, complements the judicial truth that has been partially established in the criminal proceedings where, to date, two of the perpetrators have been convicted and two presumed masterminds are being tried (supra paras. 78 to 81, 93 and 128). Although the appearance of the Diario Militar in 1999 and the Historical Archive of the National Police in 2005, both through unofficial channels, reveals the concealment of information held by the State (supra paras. 55, 46 and 60), the Court observes that, in this specific case, it did not prevent the CEH from the essential determination of an extrajudicial truth about what happened to Edgar Fernando García, nor did it prevent a judicial truth being established, years later, in the criminal proceedings that are still open at the domestic level. Even though the Court has identified certain irregularities in the judicial proceedings, it considers that the substance of the said allegations has already been examined in the analysis made under the right of access to justice and the obligation to investigate in Chapter VIII-2 of this Judgment. Consequently, the Court does not find it necessary to make an additional ruling with regard to the alleged violation of the right to the truth submitted by the representatives. 261 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 76 and 77, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 298. 262 Cf. 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 the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 298. 263 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 84, note 37. 264 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 298. 62