315. The representatives argued that the State was responsible for violating the right to the truth, insofar as it had concealed relevant information on the case and failed to institute proceedings or take the steps required to clarify the truth about what happened. They indicated that the right to the truth had two dimensions: an individual dimension that safeguarded the rights of the victims and their next of kin, and a collective dimension that protected the right of society to know the truth, accede to information, and reconstruct the collective memory. They proposed that this right should be understood as an autonomous and independent right. In their understanding, even though it was not expressly established in the Convention, the said right emanated from the series of protections established in Articles 1(1), 5, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention. 316. According to the representatives, the violation of the right to the truth occurred because the State: (a) published a false version of Mr. Herzog’s death; (b) systematically refused access to military documentation, and (c) allowed impunity in order to obstruct knowledge of the truth. 317. Regarding the dissemination of the false version of Mr. Herzog’s death, the representatives indicated that the widely publicized version of his death was that he had committed suicide, and a photograph was released to support that version. The cause of death on Mr. Herzog’s death certificate was “mechanical asphyxiation by hanging.” It was only in 2013 that the cause of death was amended to “injuries and ill-treatment suffered” while being interrogated in the DOI/CODI/SP. The repetition of the false version for many years caused great suffering to Vladimir Herzog’s family. 318. In relation to the concealment of military files, the representatives emphasized that the National Truth Commission had stated that this circumstance had been an obstacle to the clarification of the deaths. They added that, regarding the systematic concealment of information about the crimes, the Armed Forces had resisted opening their information files, even during the constitutional democratic period (after 1988) and while the National Truth Commission was functioning (2012-2014). 319. They argued that the State’s position of refusing to provide information so as not “to re-open old wounds” violated the right to the truth. They indicated that it was not possible, as affirmed by the Attorney General of the Union when denying the information to the Federal Public Prosecution Service, that no documentation whatsoever existed on the persons who were detained or died in the DOI/CODI/SP. 320. They also underlined that one of the objectives of the public civil action filed by the Public Prosecution Service was the declaration of the obligation of the Armed Forces to hand over all the documents relating to the Second Army’s DOI/CODI that they possessed; a request based on the fact that “to date, the Brazilian Army has not given the public access to the files and information so that all the circumstances and all those responsible for the illegal acts carried out by that federal body can be known.” In addition, they indicated that the Public Prosecution Service had indicate that the Armed Forces had obstructed access to “almost” all the information on the activities of the Second Army’s DOI/CODI. 321. Regarding “impunity as an obstacle to knowing the truth,” the representatives acknowledged the historical and informative importance of the work of the National Truth Commission. However, they indicated that this historical truth did not complete or substitute for the State’s obligation to establish the truth using procedural mechanisms. 84