violations and the corresponding perpetrators.” 191 Fulfilling this right is in the interests not only of the victims’ families but also of society as a whole, which is thereby aided in the prevention of these kinds of violations in the future. 192 115. This Court's case law has also established the autonomy and broad nature of the right to truth, which is not established explicitly in the American Convention but is linked to several of its provisions. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the violation of this right can be related to different rights explicitly established in the Convention, 193 as is the case with the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8 and 25 respectively, 194 or the right of access to information, protected by Article 13. 195 116. The violent death of Mr. Sales Pimenta occurred within a context of rampant murders of rural workers and those defending their rights, along with widespread impunity for those kinds of crimes and numerous previous threats against the alleged victim. Consequently, clarification of the facts of the murder and responsibility for it was important not only for the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta; it also had collective importance, as a failure to clarify the circumstances of Mr. Sales Pimenta’s violent death would have a chilling effect on human rights defenders, rural workers, and society as a whole. 117. Moreover, the Court affirms that impunity prevails in this case to the present day. That is because the circumstances of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s death were never clarified, despite the identification of three suspects and the existence of two eyewitnesses, as well as other evidence that was available to the state authorities. 118. Almost 40 years after the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, the truth about what happened has not been ascertained, despite an abundance of evidence and the State’s duty to exercise enhanced due diligence to investigate the events of this case. The Court thus finds that Brazil has violated the right to truth to the detriment of Mr. Sales Pimenta's family. b.4 Conclusion 119. The serious shortcomings in the State’s investigation of the death of Gabriel Sales Pimenta identified in this chapter constituted a failure to fulfill the duty to exercise enhanced due diligence to investigate crimes committed against human rights defenders, as well as a flagrant violation of the right to a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, the Court affirms that impunity prevails in this case to the present day. That is because the circumstances of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s death were never clarified, despite the identification of three suspects and the existence of two eyewitnesses, as well as other evidence that was available to the state authorities. Brazil was unable to identify Mr. Sales Pimenta’s shooter or punish all those responsible. 120. In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that this case is situated within a context of structural impunity characterized by threats, murders, and other human rights violations against rural workers and those defending them in the state of Pará (supra paras. 47 to 51). That structural impunity is also reflected in the failure to exercise due diligence, as shown in the analysis of this case. Indeed, the record shows that the gross negligence of judicial authorities in the criminal 191 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 80; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 206; and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2019. Series C No. 374, para. 110. 192 Mutatis mutandis Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 78. 193 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, supra, para. 100, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 176. 194 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 181, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 176. 195 The Court sees no reason to analyze Article 13 of the American Convention in this case, as none of the elements of the factual framework established by the Commission relate to access to information. 33