62 173. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention,273 acknowledged by the State, the Court recalls that every individual, including the next of kin of the victims of grave human rights violations, has, in accordance with Articles 1(1), 8(1), 25 and, under certain circumstances, Article 13 of the Convention,274 the right to know the truth, so that they and society as a whole must be informed on what happened.275 In the instant case, the Court finds that there are no elements to verify the alleged violation of that provision, without prejudice to the analysis already made under the right of access to justice and the obligation to investigate. F. General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of the Peace 174. The Commission indicated that, even though that the Amnesty Law is currently in force in El Salvador, the investigations into the forced disappearances in this case have not yet examined its application, because they were “in such early stages that they have not even reached the point of filing charges against those possibly responsible.” Consequently, when the investigations advance and the possibility arises of bringing those allegedly responsible to trial, there is no doubt that the existence of the law “represents a possible obstruction to the prospect of justice in later stages of the investigations.” For their part, the representatives alleged that the Amnesty Law is another specific obstacle that would allow and encourage “a situation of absolute impunity.” In this regard, they stated that “[e]ven though the Amnesty Law has not been invoked in any of these cases, sanctions have not been applied, which [would] indicate that the system of justice assumed that this law extinguished any type of responsibility.” 175. Since, according to the evidence provided by the parties, there is no indication that Legislative Decree No. 486 “General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of the Peace,” promulgated in El Salvador on March 20, 1993,276 has been applied in the investigations in this case, it is not incumbent on the Court to rule on whether that law is compatible with the American Convention as a result of a specific violation in this case. G. 176. Conclusions Approximately 30 years have passed since the forced disappearances of Ana Julia costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 207, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 285. 273 The pertinent part of Article 13 of the Convention establishes: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.” 274 Cf. Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 243. In this regard, in the case of Gómes Lund et al., the Court observed that, in keeping with the facts of the case, the right to know the truth was related to an action filed by the family members to access certain information related to access to justice and the right to seek and receive information embodied in Article 13 of the American Convention, and it therefore analyzed the right under this provision. Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 201. 275 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 269, para. 274; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 243, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 200. 276 Legislative Decree in force as of March 22, 1993, that conceded a “broad, absolute and unconditional amnesty to all the persons who, in any way, have participated in the perpetration of political crimes, common crimes connected to political crimes, and in common crimes committed by at least 20 individuals before January 1, 1992, even if judgment has been handed down against the said persons, or proceedings have been initiated for these crimes, and this pardon is granted to all those who have participated.” Cf. Legislative Decree No. 486, Law of General Amnesty for Consolidation of the Peace, of March 20, 1993, published in Official Gazette No. 56, Volume 318, on March 22, 1993 (evidence file, volume V, attachment 14 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 3605 to 3608).