Castro et al. v. Peru and Gelman v. Uruguay, the Court has included additional and specific considerations applicable to the particular case concerning the violation of the right to the truth. 790 Furthermore, in the case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, the Court examined the violation of the right to know the truth in its analysis of the right to personal integrity of the next of kin, because it considered that, by concealing information that prevented the next of kin from knowing the truth, the respective State had violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. 791 Additionally, in the case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, the Court declared an autonomous violation of the right to the truth that, owing to the specific circumstances of that case, also constituted a violation of the right of access to justice and an effective remedy, and a violation of the right to seek and receive information, recognized in Article 13 of the Convention. 792 510. In this case, 29 years after the events, the truth about what happened to the victims in this case and their whereabouts are still unknown. Moreover, the Court underlines that, since the events occurred, a series of actions have been revealed that have facilitated the concealment of what happened and prevented or delayed their clarification by the judicial authorities and the Prosecution Service. In addition, despite the creation of a Truth Commission in 2005 as part of the efforts made by the Judiciary to establish the truth about what happened, its conclusions have not been accepted by the different State organs responsible for the implementation of its recommendations. In this regard, the Court recalls that the State argued before this Court that the said commission was unofficial and that its report did not represent the truth of what happened 793 (supra para. 84). Thus, the State’s position has prevented the victims and their families from achieving their right to the establishment of the truth by means of this extrajudicial commission. In the Court’s opinion a report such as that of the Truth Commission is important, although complementary, and does not substitute the State’s obligation to establish the truth by means of judicial proceedings. 794 Thus, the Court stresses that there is still no official version of what happened to most of the victims in this case. 202, paras. 119 and 120; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 298. In one case this consideration was included under the obligation to investigate ordered as a measure of reparation. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 148. Also, in other cases, it has been established that it is subsumed in Articles 8(1), 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, but this consideration has not been included in the reasoning of the respective operative paragraph. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 291; Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 263, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 173. 790 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paras. 168 and 169, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No.221, paras. 192, 226 and 243 to 246. 791 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 202. 792 In this regard, in the case of Gomes Lund et al., the Court observed that, based on the events of the case, the right to know the truth was related to an action filed by the next of kin to access certain information in relation to access to justice and the right to seek and receive information recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention, so that it analyzed that right under this provision. Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 201. 793 Indeed, the Truth Commission itself stated that, owing to its nature, it “did not receive logistic, material or human support from any State body,” so that this report “is the result of the direct and personal commitment of the commissioners, with their own resources and, in the last year and a half of their work, with the efficient technical and methodological assistance of the International Center for Transitional Justice […], with the support of the Ford Foundation and the European Commission.” Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 27 and 28). 794 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C 179