79 respecting and ensuring the right to the truth to help end impunity and to promote and protect human rights.” 313 264. For its part, this Court has determined that everyone, including the next of kin of victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. Consequently, the next of kin of the victims and society must be informed of everything that occurred with regard to said violations. 314 The Inter-American Court has considered the content of the right to know the truth in its jurisprudence, particularly in cases of forced disappearance. Since the case of Velásquez Rodríguez, the Court has affirmed the right of the victims’ next of kin “to know their fate and, where possible, the location of their remains.” 315 Subsequently, in different cases the Court has considered that the right to know the truth “is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain from the competent authorities of the State the clarification of the facts, the violations and the corresponding responsibilities, through the investigation and judgment provided for in Articles 8 and 25(1) of the Convention.” 316 On the other hand, in some cases, such as Anzualdo Castro et al. v. Peru and Gelman v. Uruguay, the Court has made additional considerations specifically applicable to cases involving the violation of the right to know the truth. 317 Likewise, in the case Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, the Court analyzed the violation of the right to know the truth in its assessment of the right to personal integrity of the relatives, since it considered that, by hiding information that prevented the relatives from knowing the truth, the respective State had violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. 318 In the case Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, the Court even declared an autonomous violation of the right to know the truth which, given the specific circumstances of that case, constituted - in addition to a violation of the right of access to justice and an effective remedy - a violation of the right to seek and receive information, enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention. 319 Finally, the Court has considered the obligation to investigate as a form of reparation, in light of the need to remedy the violation of the right to know the truth in that specific case. 320 Cf. OAS General Assembly, Resolutions: AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06) June 6, 2006, AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVII-O/07) June 5, 2007, AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIII-O/08) June 3, 2008, AG/RES. 2509 (XXXIX-O/09), June 4, 2009, AG/RES. 2595 (XLO/10), June 8, 2010, AG/RES. 2662 (XLI-O/11), June 7, 2011, AG/RES. 2725 (XLII-O/12), June 4, 2012, AG/RES. 2800 (XLIIIO/13), June 5, 2013, and AG/RES. 2822 (XLIV-O/14), June 4, 2014. 314 Cf. Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia, supra, para. 261, and Case 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. 200. 315 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181. 316 Cf. 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; Case Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits a n d Reparations. Judgment of 24 February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paras. 243 a n d 244; Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 240; Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, para. 220; Case o f L a Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 147; Case o f Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, paras. 119 a n d 120, a n d Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 298. In one case, such consideration was made within the obligation to investigate ordered as a measure of reparation. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 148. Furthermore, in other cases it has been established that it is subsumed in Articles 8(1), 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, but this consideration was not included in the reasoning of the respective operative paragraph. Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 291; Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 263, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 173. 317 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, paras. 118 to 119, and Case Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, paras. 192, 226 and 243 to 246. 318 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 202. 319 In this regard, in the Case of Gomes Lund et al., the Court noted that, in accordance with the facts, the right to know the truth se related to an action filed by the family members to access certain information, linked with access to justice and with the right to seek and receive information recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention, for which it analyzed that right under this norm. Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil, supra, para. 201. 320 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, supra, para. 201. 313