67 remembered that on August 27, 1994, Mr. Omeara Carrascal's son, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, disappeared, and on September 23 his lifeless body was found (supra paras. 86 and 91). Similarly, after he gave a statement about the disappearance of his son-in-law, on October 21, 1994, Mr. Álvarez Sánchez was shot by firearm (supra para. 96). The following day, Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, daughter of Mr. Omeara Carrascal, and Fabiola Álvarez Solano, daughter of Mr. Álvarez Sánchez and wife of Mr. Omeara Miraval, along with their three children, left the town of Aguachica (supra paras. 99 and 100). According to Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano, since her father, as a result of the attack against him, “entered [a] clinic [in] Bucaramanga, during the time he was hospitalized […] and then in [his ] residence a DAS escort stayed all day.”286 With the exception of the measure just mentioned, carried out after the attack against Mr. Álvarez Sánchez, there are no other acts of protection recorded. On August 9, 1995, the protection of the Omeara and Álvarez families was ordered, but there is no evidence that the respective measures were taken. B.2.5. Conclusion regarding the points in dispute 255. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State, in the investigations of the events in the case, did not act with due diligence to follow up on logical lines of investigation. In addition, even though it must have known that the next of kin of Omeara and Álvarez were at risk, it did not provide or offer them protection. It is reasonable to assume that this omission undermined the participation of the victims in the investigative proceedings. In addition, the State did not observe the guarantee of impartiality in the first actions related to the investigation into Omeara Miraval, and did not follow a reasonable timeframe. C. Right to the truth in relation to what happened to Omeara Miraval 256. The Court recalls that every person, including the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth.287 Consequently, the next of kin of the victims and society must be informed of all events in relation to said violations.288 Although the right to know the truth has been framed fundamentally in the right of access to justice,289 the truth is that this right to the truth is autonomous since it is broad in nature and its violation can affect different rights contained in the American Convention, depending on the context and particular circumstances of the case.290 The Court has also advised of the relevance of the right to the truth regarding forced disappearances.291 In addition, although it has been noted that the right to the truth implies the right of the victim's next of kin to know the victim's fate,292 the right also encompasses other aspects, insofar as it is related, in a general way, to the right of the next of kin that the State carry out the necessary actions aimed at achieving “the clarification of the violations and the corresponding responsibilities”.293 Statement of Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano, supra. The declarant did not indicate how long the protection was extended. She indicated that “by 1995” Mr. Álvarez Sánchez was transferred to Bogotá. 287 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 243, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 288 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 289 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 290 Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, supra, para. 220, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 291 Cf., among others, Case of the Rural Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, supra, para. 262, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 292 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 293 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 48 and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 215. 286