regarding the search for disappeared persons, which was alleged by the representatives (supra paras. 150 and 152). 154. Colombia also argued that, during the proceedings, the judicial bodies had had access to all the information they required to carry out their work. It added that, specifically, within the framework of the disciplinary and criminal investigations, the authorities “have accessed the intelligence information of the National Army” and there had been no refusal to hand information over to a judicial authority. B.2 Considerations of the Court 155. This Court has ruled that “everyone, including the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth.” Consequently, they “should be informed of everything that happened regarding such violations.” 173 156. The autonomy and broad nature of the right to the truth has also been established in the case law of this Court. While this right is not recognized expressly in the American Convention, it is linked to various provisions of the treaty. Depending on the context and circumstances of a case, the violation of this right may be related to other rights expressly established in the Convention,174 such as the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the treaty,175 and the right to access to information, protected by Article 13 (infra para. 160). 157. The Court has pointed to the importance of the right to the truth regarding forced disappearances.176 Satisfaction of this right is in the interest not only of the relatives of the victims of forced disappearance, but also of society as a whole, as it facilitates the prevention of this type of violation in the future. 177 The right to the truth is related, in a general way, to the State’s obligation to carry out actions aimed at clarifying violations and apportioning responsibility.178 In its case law, the Court has also established that the right to know the whereabouts of disappeared victims is an essential component of the right to know the truth. 179 158. Furthermore, the Court has referred to the obligation to search for disappeared persons, which is closely linked to the right to the truth.180 The Court recalls that, in cases of forced disappearance, the right of access to justice, within the framework of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, acquires special importance in guaranteeing the rights of disappeared persons, as well as their relatives. Based on provisions of this kind, this Court has already Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100 and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 176. Similarly, Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, para. 134. 174 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, supra, para. 100, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 176. 175 Case of Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para 181; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 62 and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 176. 176 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 84; Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 176; Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 149, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para, 215. 177 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 78. 178 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 80; Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 180. 179 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 80; Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 160, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 110. 180 Cf. Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 214. 173 42