established that there is an “autonomous obligation” to “search for and locate missing persons, 181 whereby the State must seek to determine the fate or whereabouts of victims, 182 which is a reasonable expectation of their loved ones that entails, if applicable, locating their remains so that a positive identification can be made. 183 This is necessary because “only if all the circumstances relating to the [forced disappearance] are clarified, will the State have provided the victim and his next of kin with an effective remedy and complied with its general obligation to investigate […], allowing the victim’s next of kin to learn the truth about the whereabouts of the mortal remains and also what happened to the victim.” 184 The Court has also established that “[t]he obligation to investigate the whereabouts continues until the person detained is found, until his or her remains appear or, in any case, until there is certainty about his or her fate,” and that these objectives and the apportioning of responsibilities are “correlated” aspects, which “must be present at any investigation” of acts of forced disappearance. 185 159. The Court also recalls that, as it has stated on previous occasions, the various State authorities are “obliged to assist in gathering evidence to achieve the objectives of an investigation and refrain from carrying out acts that would obstruct the progress of the investigation.”186 Moreover, “in cases of human rights violations, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding.” 187 160. In relation to all of the above, it should be placed on record that, in the present case, this Court does not find grounds to examine Article 13 of the American Convention. This is because the circumstances of this case must be differentiated from others in which the right is related to actions specifically aimed at accessing certain information. 188 This aspect is not present in the case now being examined, in which the authorities in charge of investigating the facts have made requests for information. Nor does the Court accept that, in this case, the right to the truth should be examined in light of Article 5 of the Convention, without this precluding taking into account, separately (infra Chapter VIII.3), the effects of the failure to comply with the right to personal integrity of Pedro Movilla’s relatives. Nor does the Court deem it pertinent or necessary, in this case, to assess the State’s obligation to search for alleged victims under the alleged “autonomous” right mentioned by the representatives. Therefore, there is no need for an examination of the regulatory provisions they offer as proof of their allegation (supra para. 152). 161. Turning to the examination of the case, the Court notes the information highlighted by Colombia regarding the development of institutions and actions whose actions have a bearing on the “collective dimension” of the right to the truth (supra footnote 171). This Court Cf. Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 214. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 124. 183 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C. No. 241, para. 73; Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, supra, para. 295. Similarly, Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2014. Series C. No. 251, paras. 115 and 252. 184 Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 80. 185 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010, Series C No. 217. para. 215. 186 Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 112, and Case of the Los Josefinos Village Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 111. 187 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 180, and Case of the Massacre of Los Josefinos Village v. Guatemala, supra, para. 111. 188 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. 201. 181 182 43