32 charges on behalf of Mrs. Iriarte de Blanco at the hearing, something which kept her from exercising her right to assert her defense and examine those who might provide information that would cast some light on the facts relating to her husband’s forced disappearance. 62. The Court does not consider the right to know the truth to be a separate right enshrined in Articles 8, 13, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, as alleged by the representatives, and, accordingly, it cannot find acceptable the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility on this point. The right to know the truth is included in the right of the victim or of the victim’s next of kin to have the relevant State authorities find out the truth of the facts that constitute the violations and establish the relevant liability through appropriate investigation and prosecution.43 63. Likewise the representatives argued, exclusively when the took part in the public hearing, that the State is responsible for the alleged violation of Article 27 (Suspension of Guarantees) of the American Convention; for its part, the Commission did not address this particular issue. It is the Court’s view that, on this particular occasion, a ruling on the aforementioned argument by the representatives is not necessary. 64. Lastly, the Court considers that the acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State constitutes a very important step towards the development of these proceedings and the enforcement of the principles underlying the American Convention. 65. In the light of the above, and in accordance with the Court’s Order of June 28, 2005 (supra para. 32), the Court will determine the relevant reparations and costs and expenses in the instant case. VIII REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION DUTY TO MAKE REPARATIONS 66. In view of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility (supra para. 27) and in line with the considerations on the merits set forth in the preceding chapter, the Court declared that the State violated, to the detriment of Messrs. Oscar José Blanco-Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández, the rights under Articles 4(1) (Right to Life); 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty); 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and that it failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Articles I(a) and I(b), X and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Moreover, the State violated the rights 43 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 62; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 97; and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 257.