31 that the right to the truth of the relatives of victims of serious human rights violations is framed within the 150 right of access to justice. 122. The right to know the truth has also been acknowledged in several United Nations instruments and, more recently, by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States 151 (OAS). 123. According to precedent established by the Inter-American Court: The right to know the truth represents a necessary effect for it is important that a society knows the truth about the facts of serious human rights violations. This is also a fair expectation that the State is required to satisfy, on the one hand, by means of the obligation to investigative human rights violations and, on the other hand, by the public dissemination of the results of the criminal and investigative procedures. The right to know the truth requires from the State the procedural determination of the patterns of joint action and of all those who participated in various ways in said violations and their corresponding responsibilities. Moreover, in compliance with the obligation to guarantee the right to know the truth, States may establish Truth Commissions, which can contribute to build and safeguard historical memory, to clarify the events and to determine 152 institutional, social and political responsibilities in certain periods of time of a society. 124. Regarding the right of the next-of-kin of victims to obtain justice and redress, the Court has ruled that: It is evident from Article 8 of the Convention that the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, 153 both in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. 125. Similarly, the Court has said that victims’ families have the right to expect – and the State has the obligation to ensure – that what befell the victims will be investigated effectively by state authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, that the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and that the losses suffered by the next of kin will 154 be repaired. According to the above, the State’s authorities, once apprised of a human rights violation – 155 in particular of the right to life, humane treatment, or personal liberty – have the duty of initiating, 156 without delay and on an ex officio basis, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, which must be 157 completed within a reasonable time. 150 I/A Court H. R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 118. 151 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 Diane Orentlicher on the updating of the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102, 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, January 9, 2006). OAS General Assembly, resolutions on the right to the truth, AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06), AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVII-O/07), and AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIIIO/08). 152 I/A Court H. R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 119. 153 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 102; Case of the Street Children (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 227; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of March 1, 2005, Series C No. 120, para. 63. 154 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 103; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 382. 155 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, para. 100. 156 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 101; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Continues…