cause of death on Vladimir Herzog’s death certificate. This signifies that, for 15 years after Brazil had accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, Mr. Herzog’s family had to support – even though only officially – declarations by public authorities that denied the truth of the facts and, even worse, upheld a lie. 336. In this case, the Court also notes that the National Truth Commission 380 placed on record that the Army’s refusal to provide access to its files, alleging that they had been destroyed, had been an obstacle to discovering the truth. 337. In accordance with the principle of good faith in access to information, the Court considers that the State cannot waive its positive obligations to ensure the right to the truth and access to public files merely by alleging that the information was destroyed. To the contrary, the State has the obligation to seek that information using all possible means. To comply with this obligation, the State must make a substantive effort and provide all necessary resources to reconstruct the information that presumably was destroyed. 381 Thus, for example, the State must allow judges, prosecutors and other independent investigation authorities to make on-site visits to the military and intelligence archives. Guaranteeing this type of action is especially essential when the responsible authorities have denied the existence of information that is crucial for discovering the truth and identifying the presumed perpetrators of gross human rights violations, provided there are reasons to presume that this information may exist. The Court considers that all the above is framed within the positive obligation of the State to preserve archives and other evidence concerning gross human rights violations, 382 as a way of ensuring the right to free access to information in both its collective and individual dimension. 338. Taking the foregoing into account, as well as its findings in Chapter VII-1, and considering the circumstances mentioned above, the Court finds that, in this case, Brazil has violated the victims’ right to know the truth, because it has failed to clarify judicially the violations in this case and has not identified the corresponding individual responsibilities for the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog by the investigation and prosecution of these facts before the ordinary jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Furthermore, this right was violated for several years that fall within the Court’s competence without the State accepting officially that the version of Mr. Herzog’s suicide was false, added to the refusal of the State to present information and to allow access to military files from the time of the facts. 339. Finally, the Court notes that, despite the efforts made by State entities to gain access to the DOI-CODI military archives, their existence has been systematically denied (supra para. 318). In particular, the Court observes that the representatives argued that Article 13 of the Convention had been violated due to the denials that occurred during the public civil action proceedings (supra para. 320). However, the Court reiterates its opinion in the case of Gomes Lund that this was an action that the victims were not able to file; therefore, the Court considers that it is unable to analyze the guarantee of the right of the next of kin to seek and receive information by means of that judicial proceeding. Accordingly, it will not include any 380 Report of the National Truth Commission, pp. 28, 29, 63, 64, 639 (evidence file, folios 1533, 1534, 1593, 1594, 2144). IACHR. The inter-American legal framework regarding the right to access to information. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, CIDH/RELE/INF. 9/12, March 7, 2011, para. 92. 381 382 UN. Commission on Human Rights. Report of the independent expert to update the Set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher: Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1., February 8, 2005, Principle 3. 88