54 also establish the truth through judicial proceedings.169 This does not obstruct the Court from taking into consideration the documents prepared by that National Commission when they refer to the State’s alleged international responsibility. 180. Additionally, the Court has considered that, within the framework of Articles 1(1), 8, and 25 of the American Convention, the next of kin of the victims have the right, and the States the obligation, to have the facts effectively investigated by State authorities and, in that sense, to know the truth of what occurred. Specifically, the Court has established the content of the right to know the truth in its jurisprudence in cases of forced disappearance of persons. In that sense, it has confirmed the existence of a “[r]ight of the next of kin of the victim to know its fate and, if it were the case, where his remains are.”170 Additionally, in a subsequent manner, in this type of cases it is understood that the next of kin of disappeared persons are victims of the facts that constitute forced disappearance, which grants them the right to have the facts investigated and that those responsible be processed and, if it were the case, punished.171 Thus, the Court recalls that the right to the truth is included within the right of the victim or his next of in to obtain from the State’s competent bodies the elucidation of the violating facts and the corresponding responsibilities, through the investigation and prosecution established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.172 Therefore, in this case it will not issue a ruling in reference to the argument on the alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention made by the representatives (supra para. 5). 181. According to the aforementioned, without harming the actions carried out by the National Human Rights Commission with regard to the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, especially in what refers to the alleged participation of state agents, the Court considers that the study on the right to a fair trial and the State’s obligation to carry out effective investigations in the present case shall be limited to the actions carried out within the jurisdictional realm. A. Actions within the ordinary jurisdiction 182. In this section, the Court considers it necessary to refer to the general processing of the investigation of the facts of the specific case within the ordinary jurisdiction to, later, make the specific analysis of the actions carried out by the State of Mexico. Before that, it shall be reiterated that, given that the State did not forward a copy of preliminary inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/2007), the facts mentioned below have been determined based on the evidence present in the Tribunal’s case file and on the statements made by the parties that were not invalidated or contested (supra para. 92). 183. On March 27, 1992 Mrs. Andrea Radilla Martínez filed a criminal accusation before the Agent of the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office in the State of Guerrero for the forced 169 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 19, para. 150, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 180. 170 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 181; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 51, para. 231, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 118. 171 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala, supra note 150, para. 97; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 146, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 118. 172 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 51, para. 78; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 19, para. 150, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 83, para. 147.