130. A person who is in detention, in conditions of illegality and arbitrariness, is in a situation of exceptional risk. For this reason, the initial actions in the investigation of a reported forced disappearance are especially relevant to safeguard the life and personal integrity of the victim. 131. The Court has established the State’s duty to investigate as long as there is uncertainty as to the fate of the disappeared person and the need to offer a simple and prompt remedy to the case, with the guarantees of due process.101 The Commission recalls that States have the duty to guarantee the right to truth to victims and their families through investigation and prosecution of the crime, as stipulated in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.102 132. Finally, as regards the right to know the truth, this has been recognized in various United Nations instruments and by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.103 The Inter-American Court has determined the content of the right to know the truth, specifically in cases of forced disappearance of persons. In the case of Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras, the Court asserted the existence of a “right of members of the victim’s family to know that victim’s fate and, if applicable, where his remains can be found.”104 In this type of cases, it is understood that the families of the disappeared person are victims of the acts comprising forced disappearance of persons, which gives them the right to have the acts investigated and the responsible parties prosecuted and, if appropriate, punished.105 The Court has recognized that the right of families of victims of serious human rights violations to know the truth is part of the right to access to justice.106 133. Along the same lines, the Court has held that: The right to know the truth represents a necessary effect for it is important that a democratic society knows the truth about acts involving serious human rights violations. This is a fair expectation that the State is required to satisfy, on the one hand by means of the obligation to investigate human rights violations, and on the other hand, by the public dissemination of the results of the criminal and investigative procedures. The right to know the truth requires of the State the procedural determination of the patterns of joint actions and of all those who participated in different ways in said violations, and their corresponding responsibilities. Moreover, in compliance with the obligation to guarantee the right to know the truth, States may establish Truth Commissions, which can contribute to building and safeguarding historical memory, to clarifying events, and to determining institutional, social, and political responsibilities at certain times in a society’s history.107 101 Inter-American Court., Case of Bámaca Velásquez Vs. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of 25 de November de 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 197. 102 Inter-American Court., Case of de la Masacre de la Rochela Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 11 de mayo de 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 147. 103 Series of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights by Fighting Impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1). Report on updating the series of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights by fighting impunity, by Professor Diane Orentlicher (E/CN.4/2005/102, of 18 February 2005). Study on the Right to Truth. Report of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/91 of 9 January 2006). OAS General Assembly, Resolutions on the Right to Life: AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06), AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVIIO/ 07) and AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIII-O/08). 104 Inter-American Court, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C. No. 4, para. 181. 105 Inter-American Court, Case of Blake Vs. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of 24 January 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 97. Inter-American Court, Case of Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 22 September 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 118. 106 107 Inter-American Court, Case of Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 22 September 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 119. 27