86 punishment of those responsible. Nonetheless, the main obstacle for the investigations in this case has been the validity and application of the Expiry Law, which, as stated by various domestic authorities, the State does not contest the necessity to revoke it, although, however, it does not do so. 242. It is evident that the investigations in the State related to this case, have exceeded any standard of reasonableness regarding the length of the proceedings, to which, notwithstanding that this entails a case of serious violations of human rights, it has not given priority to the principle of effectiveness in the investigation of the facts and determination and, where applicable, the necessary punishment for those responsible. 300 243. All persons, including the next of kin of the victims of gross human rights violations, have, pursuant to Articles 1(1), 8(1), and 25, as well as in certain circumstances Article 13 of the Convention, 301 the right to know the truth. As a consequence, the next of kin of the victims and society must be informed of all that occurred in regard to said violations. 302 This right has also been recognized in various instruments of the United Nations and by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States,303 and whose content, in particular cases of enforced disappearance, is part of the “right of the next of kin to know the fate of                                                          300 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 146, para. 171; Case of the Mapiripan Massacre, supra note 14, para. 214; and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 292, para. 149. See, also, mutatis mutandi, Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 166. 301 Recently, in the Case of Gomes Lund et al., the Court noted that under the facts involved, the right to know the truth was related to an action brought by relatives to access certain information, related to access to justice and the right to seek and receive information as enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention, reason for which it was analyzed under this norm. 302 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 9, para. 274; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 128, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 200. 303 Cf. inter alia, Report of the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights. Study on the Right to the Truth, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/91 of January 9, 2006; General Assembly of the OAS, Resolutions: AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06) of June 6, 2006, AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVII-O/07) of June 5, 2007; AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIII-O/08) of June 3, 2008; AG/RES. 2509 (XXXIX-O/09) of June 4, 2009, and AG/RES. 2595 (XL-O/10) of July 12, 2010, and Report of Diane Orentlicher, Independent expert responsible for updating the set of principles to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102) of February 18, 2005. In the same sense, the former Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, in the Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity, of 2005, established, inter alia, that: i) “Every people has the inalienable right to know the truth about past events concerning the perpetration of heinous crimes and about the circumstances and reasons that led, through massive or systematic violations, to the perpetration of those crimes, (principle 2); ii) A people’s knowledge of the history of its oppression is part of its heritage and, as such, must be ensured by appropriate measures in fulfilment of the State’s duty to preserve archives and other evidence concerning violations of human rights and humanitarian law and to facilitate knowledge of those violations. Such measures shall be aimed at preserving the collective memory from extinction and, in particular, at guarding against the development of revisionist and negationist arguments, (principle 3); iii) Irrespective of any legal proceedings, victims and their families have the imprescriptible right to know the truth about the circumstances in which violations took place and, in the event of death or disappearance, the victims’ fate, (principle 4), and iv) States must take appropriate action, including measures necessary to ensure the independent and effective operation of the judiciary, to give effect to the right to know. Appropriate measures to ensure this right may include non-judicial processes that complement the role of the judiciary. Regardless of whether a State establishes such a body, it must ensure the preservation of, and access to, archives concerning violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Cf. in the Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1) of February 8, 2005.