289. The Court observes that, in its Report on Merits, the Commission indicated that it did not have sufficient evidence to rule on the investigations that had been conducted into the death of Oscar José Barrios. In addition, the representatives referred to alleged shortcomings in the initial phase of the investigation procedure, although they indicated that some measures had been taken such as reports, autopsies and interviews. The State indicated that it had taken investigative measures. The foregoing reveals that the investigation into the death of Oscar José Barrios is underway and relates to a recent incident; in this regard, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to rule on the alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Similarly, the investigations into the deaths of Wilmer José Flores Barrios and Juan José Barrios, and the attempt on the life of Néstor Caudi Barrios, relate to recent cases regarding which this Court does not have specific evidence to rule on this alleged violation. H. Right to the truth 1. Arguments of the representatives 290. The representatives stated that “[a]lthough [the right to the truth] is not explicitly stated in the text of the [Convention], the protections established in Articles 1(1), 8, 13 and 25, taken as to whole, implicitly signify the existence of this right.” They asked the Court to “establish that the Venezuelan State had violated the right of the members of the Barrios family to know the truth about the acts perpetrated against them, […] by failing to provide effective procedures and mechanisms to elucidate the truth of what occurred, and to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible; also, to establish that these acts and omissions of the State constituted a violation of the right to the truth, which is protected by Articles 1(1), 8, 13 and 25 of the [Convention] taken as to whole.” 2. Considerations of the Court 291. The Court recalls that the right to the truth is subsumed fundamentally in the right of the victims or their next of kin to obtain from the competent State bodies clarification of the acts that violated the Convention and the corresponding responsibilities, by the investigation and prosecution established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention,376 which is also to form a reparation.377 Consequently, in this case, the Court will not make an additional ruling on the alleged violation of the right to the truth asserted by the representatives.378 I. General conclusion of the Court on judicial guarantees and protection 292. The Court observes that, even though investigations were opened in this case, it is evident that the necessary steps were not taken to elucidate the facts. In addition, none of them was able to identify and punish those responsible, and delays have been verified in 376 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 78, and 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. 377 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 181, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 376, para. 206. 378 In the case of Gomes Lund et al., the right to the truth was related to Article 13, because the Court observed that, according to the facts involved in that case, the right to know the truth was related to an action filed by the next of kin to obtain certain information related to access to justice, and to the right to seek and receive information. 92