11 the alleged relationship between the criminal investigation of this case and the death of three witnesses and an agent of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police [Cuerpo Técnico de la Policía Judicial], the intervention of the military’s criminal justice system, and the alleged violation of the independence and autonomy of the judicial branch, among other alleged irregularities in the domestic proceedings. 38. Likewise, the State considers that it has complied with its obligation under Article 2 of the American Convention, whose non-compliance was alleged by the representatives. The State argued that the right to truth is not an autonomous right, as alleged by the representatives, but instead is subsumed in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. As has been noted (supra para. 4), the representatives allege that the right to truth is also contained in Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. 39. Pursuant to the terms expressed by the parties, the Tribunal finds that controversy subsists between them regarding the facts related to an alleged violation of Articles 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), and 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), as well as Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of all of the alleged victims and their next of kin. Regarding the victims 40. Given the foregoing, the controversy has ceased with regard to the acknowledgment that the 12 members of the Judicial Commission who died and the 3 members who survived are victims of the violation of Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, and that they are also victims of a partial violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 41. Regarding the mentioned acknowledgment of the violation of Article 5 “with regard to the victims’ next of kin” (supra para. 13) it must be noted that when the State expressed its acknowledgment, it knew that the Commission had presented a list of 86 people as next of kin13 of victims in its application. Likewise, the State knew that, in their brief containing pleadings and motions, the representatives included 1514 individuals in their list of next of kin, in addition to the 86 individuals included in the application. Therefore, a total of 101 individuals were characterized as next of kin by the Commission and the representatives in their briefs. 42. Even though, according to Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission should precisely identify with precision the alleged victims in the case, at times the Court has considered individuals who were not alleged as victims in the application, taking in account, inter alia, the procedural moment at which they were identified, the fact that the State had been guaranteed a possibility to object to their inclusion, and the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility.15 13 These are the spouses or companions, and children, parents, and siblings of the 12 deceased victims. 14 The representatives included the names of: a son of the deceased victim Arnulfo Mejía Duarte; a grandchild of the deceased victim Samuel Vargas Páez; and the spouse, children, mother, and siblings of the surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón. Likewise, with regard to Arturo Salgado Garzón, the representatives included the names of three individuals who they identified as siblings (infra para. 48). 15 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 72; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 178; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 29; and Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 91.