80 265. Based on the above considerations, it is clear that, although the right to know the truth has been fundamentally framed within the right of access to justice, 321 it has a broad nature and its violation can affect different rights recognized in the American Convention, 322 depending on the particular context and circumstances of the case. In the case of Peru, the Constitutional Court has recognized that “the right to the truth, although not expressly recognized in the constitutional text, is a fully protected right […].” 323It has also stated that “the nation has the right to know the truth about the unjust and painful facts or events caused by the multiple forms of State and non-State violence. This right translates into the possibility of knowing the circumstances of time, manner and place in which they occurred, as well as the motives of the perpetrators. The right to the truth is, in this sense, an inalienable collective legal right.” 324 It should also be noted that on September 26, 2012, Peru ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance, which expressly recognizes the right to know the truth. 266. In this regard, the Inter-American Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 29(b) of the American Convention, no provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as “restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party.” Moreover, Article 29(c) of the Convention establishes that “no provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government.” The Court also recalls that Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter establishes that “transparency in government activities” is an essential component of the exercise of democracy. 267. In the instant case, approximately 24 years after the forced disappearance of the 15 victims, the State has still not clarified everything that happened, or determined all the corresponding responsibilities; and there is still uncertainty as to whether the remains found and those that may still remain in the mine – belong to the victims in this case. The Court has noted the negligence with which the remains collected in the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine were handled, both in 1991 and between 2009, 2010 and 2011 (supra para. 185), which has not helped to clarify the facts. Furthermore, the State’s own agents attempted to erase all traces of the crime and to conceal what happened by destroying evidence (supra paras. 184 and 185). In this regard, the Court emphasizes that in the context of a forced disappearance, the right to know the whereabouts of the missing victim constitutes an essential component of the right to know the truth. For the relatives of disappeared victims, uncertainty about the fate of their loved ones is one of the main sources of psychological and moral suffering. Therefore, the Court declares the violation of the right to know the truth, to the detriment of the next of kin of the fifteen victims of forced disappearance. In this case, as in others, said violation is part of the right of access to justice. 321 Cf. See inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 181; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 48; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 148; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, paras. 243 and 244, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 117. 322 In its study on the right to know the truth, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that various international declarations and instruments have recognized the right to know the truth linked to the right to obtain and request information, the right to justice, the duty to combat impunity for human rights violations, the right to an effective judicial remedy, and the right to private and family life. Also, in relation to the victims' relatives, it has been linked to the right to integrity of the victim's relatives (mental health), the right to obtain reparation in cases of serious human rights violations, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment and, in certain circumstances, the right of children to receive special protection. Cf. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Study on the right to the truth, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/91 of January 9, 2006. 323 Cf. Constitutional Court of Peru. Case of Genaro Villegas Namuche. Judgment of March 18, 2004. File No. 2488-2002HC/TC, para. 13. 324 Cf. Constitutional Court of Peru. Case of Genaro Villegas Namuche. Judgment of March 18, 2004. File No. 2488-2002HC/TC, para. 8.