41 detriment of the victim and his next of kin, due to deficient conduct of the investigations and of the special inquiry procedure, which has impeded punishment of the direct perpetrators and masterminds of the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, and has generated feelings of insecurity, powerlessness and anguish among the victim’s next of kin. 79. The Court recognizes that in the instant case, impunity prevails regarding the direct perpetrators and masterminds responsible for the facts. At the date of this Judgment, more than twenty-two years after the facts in the instant case, those responsible for the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen have not been identified, tried, and punished. Therefore, there is a situation of impunity that constitutes a breach of the aforementioned duty of the State, that is injurious to the victim and to his next of kin, and that fosters chronic recidivism of the human rights violations involved.50 80. This Court has repeatedly referred to the right of the next of kin of the victims to know what happened and who the agents of the State responsible for the respective facts were.51 As the Court has pointed out, “[w]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, [...] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality.”52 In cases of forced disappearance of the victim, such as the instant one, this Court has pointed out that it “often involves secret execution without trial, followed by concealment of the body to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those responsible.”53 81. The Court deems that the victim of grave human rights violations and his next of kin, if applicable, have the right to know the truth.54 Therefore, Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s next of kin have the right to know what happened to him and to know where his remains are. This right to the truth has been developed in International Human Rights Law55 and its recognition may be an important means of 50 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 2, para. 176; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 2, para. 272; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 2, para. 120. 51 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 2, para. 273, Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 27, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 92, para. 100; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 74. 52 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 2, para. 273; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations, supra note 51, para. 74. 53 See Case of Bámaca Velásquez. November 25, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 70, para. 130; Case of Godínez Cruz. January 20, 1989 Judgment. Series C No. 5, para. 165; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. July 29, 1988 Judgment. Series C No. 4, para. 157. 54 55 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 2, para. 274. See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 2, para. 274; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 51, para. 114; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations, supra note 51, para. 76.