an aspect of the right to the truth is “the right of the families of the victim to know the fate of the victim and, where appropriate, the location of the remains.”215 178. The Court notes that Uruguay has adopted policies that satisfy the right to the truth of the victims in this case and of society in general. The Court, thus, welcomes the creation of the Parliamentary Investigative Commission, the Peace Commission, and the Investigative Commission of the National Army. It also welcomes the creation of the Office of the Prosecutor for Crimes against Humanity. These efforts demonstrate the State’s commitment, not only by the Executive but also by the Legislative and Judicial Branches, with respect to the inquiries and to learning the truth of what occurred during the period of the de facto regime. These types of actions shed light on the events, preserve the historical memory and determine responsibilities. 179. Notwithstanding the above, in accordance with the Court’s consistent case law,216 the “historical truth” that may result from this type of policies is not a substitute for nor does it satisfy the State’s obligation to establish the truth and ensure the determination of individual responsibilities through judicial criminal proceedings. 217 180. The State has not judicially clarified the facts in this case nor determined individual responsibilities by investigating and prosecuting the extrajudicial executions of the three women and the forced disappearances of the two men. It has already been determined that the judicial investigation, which has not concluded, was undermined by the application of a law (the Expiry Law) in violation of the State’s international obligations; there were shortcomings of due diligence, and a failure to observe a reasonable time. In may be concluded, therefore, that Uruguay violated the right to know the truth to the detriment of the next of kin of those five persons. This violation forms part of the right to access to justice. Uruguay, therefore, did not comply with Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. B.3 Conclusion 181. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, to the detriment of Luis Eduardo González González, Óscar Tassino Asteazú and their next of kin, Amalia González de González, Elena Zaffaroni Rocco, Disnarda Ema Flores Soler de Tassino, Karina Teresa Tassino, Javier Tassino and Álvaro Luis Tassino, the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and Article I(b) and (d) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 182. With respect to Flora Potasnik, Mónica Raquel Wodzislawski, Marta Odizzio de Raggio, Horacio Enrique Raggio Odizzio, Daniel Raggio Odizzio, Arturo Ricardo Reyes 215 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 181 and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, para. 159. 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. 150; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 234; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 179; Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 287 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, para. 330. 216 Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 297, Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 287 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, para. 330. 217 48