which must be aimed at exploring all possible lines of inquiry.282 The State can be held accountable for failing to “order, practice, or evaluate evidence” that could be fundamental to due clarification of the facts.283 243. The Commission observes, moreover, that the standard of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Masneva v. Ukraine for purposes of satisfying due diligence in the investigation when the facts would seem to indicate that a homicide was perpetrated by state agents is that an “investigation will not be effective unless all the evidence is properly analyzed and the conclusions are consistent and reasoned.” 284 244. The Court has established the obligation of the State to investigate the facts while there is uncertainty about the fate of the person who has disappeared and the need to provide a simple and prompt recourse in the case, with due guarantees. .285 The Commission recalls in this connection that the States must guarantee the right of the victims or their next of kin to the truth through the investigation and trial provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.286 245. Lastly, the right to the truth has been recognized in various United Nations instruments and by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS).287 For its part, the Inter-American Court has determined what constitutes the right to the truth, in particular in cases of forced disappearance. In the Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, the Court affirmed the existence of the right of relatives to be informed “of the fate of the victims and, if they have been killed, the location of their remains.”288 In this type of case, it is understood that the next of kin of the disappeared person are victims of the constituent elements of the forced disappearance, being a true form of torture for the victims’ family and friends because of the uncertainty as to the fate of the victim and because they feel powerless to provide legal, moral and material assistance, which gives them the right to an investigation of the facts and to the prosecution and, if appropriate, the punishment of those responsible.289 246. Considering the arguments of the parties and the facts established in the instant case, the Commission will examine implementation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection and the obligation to investigate a supposed forced disappearance of persons, in the following order: 1. Consideration of the case by military criminal justice; 2. Diligence in the investigation; and 3. Reasonable time. 1. Consideration of the case by military criminal justice 247. The Commission recalls that special jurisdictions, such as military criminal justice, must be restrictive and exceptional in scope and must focus on protecting special legal interests, related to the entity itself. Consequently, the Inter-American Court has had the opportunity to analyze the structure and make-up of special courts, like military courts, in light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Some relevant factors that justify the restrictive application of the military jurisdiction are that: (i) they are made up of active-duty military members who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked 282IACHR, Report No. 25/09 Merits (Sebastião Camargo Filho) Brazil, March 19, 2009, para. 109. See also, IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, January 20, 2007, para. 41. 283 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 230. See also, IACHR Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, January 20, 2007, para. 41. 284ECHR, Masneva v. Ukraine, Application No. 5952/07, December 20, 2011, para. 49. 285 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 197. 286 IACHR. The Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA/Sr.L/V/II.152. Doc. 2. August 13, 2014. Par. 13. Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1). Report of the independent expert to update the Set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher (E/CN.4/2005/102, of February 18, 2005). Study on the right to the truth - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/91 of January 9, 2006). OAS General Assembly. Resolutions on the Right to Truth, AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06), AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVII-O/07), and AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIII-O/08). 287 288 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C. No. 4, para. 181. IACHR, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1977, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.43, Doc. 21 corr. 1, April 20, 1978, Part, II, Areas in which further steps are needed to give effect to the human rights set forth in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 97. 289