167. The Court has indicated that every person, including the relatives of the victims of human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. 188 Essentially, the right to access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time period, the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to know the truth about what happened and investigate it to prosecute and punish those eventually found responsible. 189 168. The Court notes that in the present case, the Commission and the representative agree regarding the situation of “impunity” for the acts committed to the detriment of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, as to date, those responsible for his enforced disappearance have not been punished. Likewise, they point out that the processes initiated to investigate and determine responsibilities for the facts that caused harm to the Julien Grisonas family were unjustifiably delayed. Consequently, without prejudice to the specific arguments related to the search for the whereabouts of the Julien Grisonas couple—which will be the subject of later analysis (infra paras. 209 to 221)—no failure to act with due diligence in criminal investigations has been alleged, since the allegations do not refer to flaws in the investigation, but to delay over time, impacting the guarantee of the reasonable period of term. 169. The Court recalls that, regarding the facts that caused harm to the Julien Grisonas family, starting with case No. 2637/04 before National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3, five “tranches” or parts have been moved to oral proceedings before Oral Federal Criminal Court No. 1 (supra paras. 101 to 107). 170. Thus, in case No. 1627 (“Automotores Orletti I”), the Oral Court convicted three people in 2011 for the crimes of “illegitimate deprivation of liberty committed by a public official with abuse of authority or without the formalities required by law, aggravated by the use of violence or threats […] in conjunction […] with the crime of committing torture,” all to the detriment of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite. The judges ordered the following sentences: (a) 25 years in prison and “absolute and perpetual disqualification” for a former intelligence agent, convicted as co-perpetrator of acts committed against multiple victims; (b) 25 years in prison for another defendant who did not exercise public functions, convicted as a necessary participant in acts also committed against multiple victims; and (c) life imprisonment and “absolute and perpetual disqualification” for a former soldier convicted as a co-perpetrator for acts committed with respect to multiple victims. The sentence was upheld in 2013. 171. As for case No. 1976, prosecuted jointly with cases No. 1504, 1951, and 2054 (“Operation Cóndor,” “Plan Cóndor,” or “Automotores Orletti II”), in 2016 a former intelligence agent of the State Information Secretariat was sentenced for the crimes of “illegitimate deprivation of liberty committed by a public official with abuse of authority or without the formalities prescribed by law, aggravated by the use of violence or threats, [...] coinciding with the crime of committing torture,” to the detriment of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite. The sentence ordered for the convicted person, as a co-perpetrator in connection with acts committed against multiple victims, was 25 years in prison and “absolute and perpetual disqualification to hold public office.” The decision was upheld in 2018. 172. Regarding cases 2261 and 2390 (“Automotores Orletti III and IV”), in 2017, the Oral Court convicted two people—former Federal Police agents—of the crime of “illegitimate deprivation of liberty committed by a public official with abuse of authority or without the formalities prescribed by law, aggravated by the use of violence or threats,” to the detriment Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, par. 181; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, par. 128, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 86. 189 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 114, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 82. 188 45