53 g. the criminal justice system in effect in Uruguay essentially recognizes no right to the victims, which in the present case, impeded Juan Gelman from appealing the December 2003 and October 2005 decisions on file, in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention; and, h. lastly, affirmed that the State violated the victims’ right to know the truth regarding the events, having withheld information relevant to the case and failing to provide the mechanisms necessary to do so, which is evidenced, in their opinion, by the fact that the Commission for Peace’s Report did not provide much more information than what Juan and Macarena Gelman found out on their own; in the limits that the State itself placed on access to information to prepare the report “Historical Investigation on the Disappeared”; and on the fact that State officials, in all levels of government and even in democracy, concealed information in their possession regarding the facts, concluding that the right to truth “is covered jointly by Articles 1(1), 8, 13, and 25” of the Convention and in violation occurred to the detriment of Juan and Macarena Gelman and “society as a whole,” and i. the State obligation to identify those responsible is reinforced by the provision in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, in light of the facts being considered crimes against humanity. 142. Although the State did not refer specifically to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives regarding the obligation to investigate the facts, in addition to its recognition of responsibility (supra paras. 19 to 22), it referred to the following: a) that upon Uruguay’s return to democracy, the State proceeded to adapt its conduct to the rule of law, as set out, inter alia, by the American Convention of Human Rights, though this “does not negate that […] María Macarena Gelman was found in 2000 and that the whereabouts of the remains of […] María Claudia García is still a pending issue for the State of Uruguay”; b) that the Commission for Peace was created by Presidential Resolution No. 858/2000 dated August 9, 2000. On April 10, 2003, the Commission for Peace submitted its Final Report where it presented its findings, including, among the analyzed cases, the case of María Claudia García Iruretagoyena; c) President Tabaré Vásquez’s inaugural speech on March 1, 2005, declaring that the enforced disappearance cases submitted for consideration to the Executive Branch resulting from that provided for in the Expiry Law, are “excluded from said law”; d) a Presidential Order, dated June 23, 2005, informing the Judicial Branch that the case at hand was excluded from the Expiry Law; e) without denying that “initially, the Executive Branch in power at the time, determined that Juan Gelman’s complaint fell within the scope of the Expiry Law,” recently, the case was reeponed by judicial decree of August