1 See the commentary to Principle 4 in this volume.
2 Art 32, Additional Protocol I, Geneva Conventions (1977).
3 Y Sandoz, ‘Commentary to Article 32’ in Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (International Committee of the Red Cross 1987) para 1212.
4 Cf Protection of Human Rights in Chile, UN Doc A/29/3219 (6 November 1974) (no mention of families of the disappeared) with Protection of Human Rights in Chile, UN Doc A/30/3448 (9 December 1975) and Human Rights in Chile, UN Doc A/34/179 (17 December 1979) (‘Urges the Chilean authorities to investigate and clarify the fate of persons reported to have disappeared for political reasons, to inform relatives of the outcome …’).
5 Brazil, Columbia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela.
6 On 29 February 1980, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (renamed the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1999) established the Working Group on Disappearances with a universal mandate, a mandate renewed by the Human Rights Council in 2014. See, The Commission on Human Rights Resolution (Res) 20 (XXXVI) Question of Missing and Disappeared Persons (29 February 1980) and Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, A/HRC/RES/27/1 (1 October 2014).
7 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc A/RES/47/133 (18 December 1992).
8 See L Joinet, Special Rapporteur, Revised Final Report on Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (Civil and Political), UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1 (2 October 1997).
9 See D Orentlicher, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Impunity: Report of the independent expert to update the Set of Principles to Combat Impunity, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/102 (18 February 2005) (hereinafter ‘Report of the independent expert’). She also made some minor textual changes to Joinet’s Principle 1, the right to the truth, now Principle 2.
10 Report of the independent expert, n 9, para 17.
11 Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Columbia, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/10 (28 February 2005) para 5. See also Commission on Human Rights, Summary Record of the 48th Meeting, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/SR.48 (21 April 2005) para 21. On 24 November 2016, the Government of Columbia and the FARC leadership signed a final agreement (Acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera) that included a reference to the fundamental right to the truth. Full text available from Oficina Del Alto Comisionado Para la Paz (Office of the High Commissioner for Peace), http://www.altocomisionadoparalapaz.gov.co/procesos-y-conversaciones/Documentos%20compartidos/24-11-2016NuevoAcuerdoFinal.pdf accessed 12 December 2017, .
12 Study on the right to the truth, UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/91 (8 February 2006).
13 See, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, A/RES/60/147 (21 March 2006) para 18 and para 22(b) and (c).
14 OAS, Right to the Truth, AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06) (6 June 2006).
15 HRC, Right to the Truth, UN Doc A/HRC/12/L.27 (25 September 2009).
16 UNSG, Statement on Inauguration of ‘Right to Truth Day’, UN Doc SG/SM/13465, 22 March 2011.
17 HRC, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-recurrence, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/18/7 (13 October 2011).
18 GA, Right to the Truth, UN Doc A/RES/68/165 (18 December 2013).
19 Pablo de Greiff, the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice Reparation and Guarantees of Non-recurrence, recently articulated the right’s essential core: ‘[T]he right to truth should be understood to require States to establish institutions, mechanisms and procedures that are enabled to lead to the revelation of the truth, which is seen as a process to seek information and facts about what has actually taken place’. See P de Greiff, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, UN Doc A/HRC/24/42 (28 August 2013) (hereinafter ‘de Greiff Report’) para 20.
at 26 .
21 Art 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cites as a source of international law, ‘international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law’. T Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (Clarendon Press 1989) 93.
22 The ICTY statute came into effect on 25 May 1993 with the adoption of UN Security Council (UNSC) Res 827, giving it temporal jurisdiction commencing on 1 January 1991 (UN Doc S/RES/827, 25 May 1993). The ICTR statute came into effect on 8 November 1994 with the adoption of UNSC Res 955 (UN Doc S/RES/955, 8 November 1994), giving it temporal jurisdiction from 1 January 1994.
23 See G Mettraux, International Crimes and the ad Hoc Tribunals (OUP 2005) 14 and generally at 13–18.
24 See, ICTY, Prosecutor v Kunarac (Judgment) IT-96-23-T (2 February 2001) para 460.
25 The first, post-Second World War case to consider the crime of rape under international law was Akayesu in 1998. The Chamber defined the customary international prohibition as ‘a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive’: ICTY, Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998) paras 597–98. Three months later the Furunǆjia Chamber brought greater precision to the definition by making clear that the customary definition of ‘rape’ included forcible oral penetration: ICTY, Prosecutor v Furunǆjia (Judgment) IT-95-17/1-T (10 December 1998) para 185. During those three months there had been no significant developments with respect to opinio juris or state practice in relation to the crime of rape. The definition of ‘rape’ would be further refined by the Kunarac Chamber in 2001, when that Chamber found that under international customary law, the requirement of coercion described by Akayesu and Furunǆjia was more precisely expressed as ‘without the consent of the victim’: Kunarac, n 24. This clarification of the customary definition of ‘rape’ appropriately reflected the conduct of paramilitaries in Foča, BiH, who held vulnerable women for extended periods and perpetrated non-consensual intercourse on them, often in the absence of explicit indicia of coercion.
28 R Lillich, ‘The Growing Importance of Customary International Human Rights Law’ (1995/96) 25(1) Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 1–30, 18.
29 D Shelton, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’ (2006) 100(291) American Journal of International Law 291–323, 292. Professor Shelton was specifically referring to jus cogens norms in this passage. Shelton ‘recognizes that states and international institutions increasingly adopt norms or statements of obligations, in nonlegally biding texts’: ibid.
30 See J Méndez, ‘The Right to Truth’ in C Joyner (ed), Reining in Impunity for International Crimes and Serious Violations of Fundamental Human Rights: Proceedings of the Siracusa Conference 17–21 September 1998 (Érès 1998) 255–78, 256.
31 See chapter on ‘Principle 4. The Victims’ Right to Know’.
32 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol I (ICRC 2005) Rule 117 at 421.
33 Albania*, Algeria, Angola, Argentina*, Armenia*, Austria*, Azerbaijan, Belgium*, Belize**, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of )*, Bosnia and Herzegovina*, Brazil*, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso*, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia**, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic**, Chad, Chile*, Colombia*, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica*, Croatia, Cuba*, Cyprus, Czech Republic*, Denmark, Ecuador*, Finland, France*, Gabon*, Germany*, Ghana, Greece*, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea- Bissau, Haiti, Honduras*, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq**, Ireland, Italy*, Japan*, Kazakhstan**, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho*, Liechtenstein, Lithuania*, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi**, Maldives, Mali*, Malta*, Mauritania*, Mexico*, Monaco, Mongolia*, Montenegro*, Morocco*, Mozambique, Netherlands*, Niger*, Nigeria**, Norway, Palau, Panama*, Paraguay*, Peru**, Poland, Portugal*, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa*, Senegal*, Serbia*, Seychelles**, Sierra Leone, Slovakia*, Slovenia, Spain*, Sri Lanka*, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland*, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo*, Tunisia*, Uganda, Ukraine**, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay*, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of ), and Zambia* (‘*’ denotes ratification; ‘**’ denotes accession). Source: United Nations Treaty Collection. See <https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-16&chapter=4&clang=_en> accessed 13 January 2018.
34 For examples of references to the right in international instruments see, eg, Art 13(1), Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc A/RES/437/133 (18 December 1992); UNGA Res 44/159, UN Doc A/RES/44/159 (15 December 1989); UNSG, Statement, UN Doc SG/SM/9400 (1 July 2004); UNSC Report, UN Doc S/200/616 (23 August 2004); UNGA Res, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc A/RES/60/147 (16 December 2005). See also European Parliament, Recommendation 1056 (1987) on National Refugees and Missing Persons in Cyprus; Res 1414 (2004) on Persons Unaccounted for as a Result of Armed Conflicts or Internal Violence in the Balkans (23 November 2004); Res 1463 (2005) on Enforced Disappearances (3 October 2005). See also OAS Permanent Council, Res OES/Ser.G CP/CAJP-2278/05/rev.4 (23 May 2005).
35 See Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Study on the Right to the Truth, UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/91 (8 February 2006)
at para 21. These states included Argentina, Belarus, Colombia, Cuba Georgia, Mauritius, Peru, Slovenia, Togo, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
36 See nn 53–65 and the text associated with them.
37 See, eg, Blanco-Romero v Venezuela (Judgment) IACtHR Series C no 138 (28 November 2005) para 62: ‘The Court does not consider the right to know the truth to be a separate right enshrined in Articles 8, 13, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, as alleged by the representatives, and, accordingly, it cannot find acceptable the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility on this point. The right to know the truth is included in the right of the victim … to have the relevant State authorities find out the truth of the facts that constitute the violations and establish the relevant liability through appropriate investigation and prosecution.’ See also Castillo-Páez v Peru (Judgment) IACtHR Series C no 34 (3 November 1997) paras 85–86.
38 See, eg, European Union: Art 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; US: Freedom of Information Act, § USC para 552; Australia: Freedom of Information Act of 1982; United Kingdom (UK): Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is important to note that the rights of access conferred by these Acts are often limited with respect to documents held by security services.
39 See, eg, Dominic Kennedy, ‘Gays Should Be Hanged, Says Iranian Minister’ The Times (13 November 2007). In this article, the author employed the UK Freedom of Information Act to access documents, held by the Foreign Commonwealth Office, of a high-level meeting in which a senior Iranian official was asked about recent hangings of two boys alleged to have engaged in homosexual conduct. The official put forward the position that homosexuals should be tortured and executed, something officially denied by Iran.
40 Bámaca-Velásquez v Guatemala (Order of the Court) IACtHR Series C no 70 (25 November 2000) Separate Concurring Opinon of Judge Ramírez, paras 19–22.
41 Contreras et al v El Salvador (Judgment) IACtHR Series C no 232 (31 August 2011) para 170.
42 See Méndez, n 30, 255–56. See Y Naqvi, ‘The Right to the Truth in International Law: Fact or Fiction’ (June 2006) 88(862) International Review of the Red Cross 245–73, 267.
44 In domestic cases the right is realized through application of national laws to uncover and redress grave violations of human rights. For a detailed overview of national cases that followed some of the IACtHR ‘right to truth’ judgments, see Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, n 20, paras 69–84.
45 See, eg, Report of the International Independent Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (September 2009), available at <echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG.pdf> accessed 12 December 2017; Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, UN Doc A/HRC/12/48 (25 September 2009) (‘Goldstone Report’) and OHCHR, Report of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), UN Doc A/HRC/30/CRP.2 (16 September 2015).
46 Truth commissions have been established to investigate events in: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Korea, Liberia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor Leste, Togo, Uganda, and Uruguay. For an assessment of the work of some of these truth commissions see P Hayner, ‘Fifteen Truth Commissions—1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study’ (1994) 16 Human Rights Quarterly 597.
47 See de Greiff Report, n 19, para 26.
48 See, eg, The National Commission on the Enforced Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP).
49 See, eg, Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor’s mandate included violations of a very broad array of international human rights. The enabling document (UNTAET/REG/2001/10) gave the Commission competence to investigate violations of ‘international human rights standards’ as defined in s 2 of UNAET/REG/1999/1. That section includes a comprehensive list of human rights instruments, including the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Section IV of The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Mandate of Liberia gives the Commission jurisdiction over, inter alia, ‘economic crimes, such as the exploitation of natural or public resources to perpetuate armed conflict’.
50 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was tasked with determining a complete picture of the possible nature, causes, and extent of gross human rights violations. The Commission recognized from the outset that it was impossible to carry out all of its tasks simultaneously, and resorted to a process of prioritizing aspects of its mandate. See South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Final Report, vol I, ch 4, subs 5, para .
51 See de Greiff Report, n 19, paras 40, 51, and 95.
53 See, eg, the following series of cases before the IACtHR: Blake v Guatemala IACtHR Series C no 36 (24 January 1998) para 97; Villagran-Morales et al IACtHR Series C no 63 (19 November 1999) para 253.6; Bámaca-Velásquez v Guatemala (Order of the Court) IACtHR Series C no 70 (25 November 2000) paras 159–66, 195, 230; Barrios Altos v Peru IACtHR Series C no 75 (14 March 2001) para 51.2(c); Mapiripán Massacre v Columbia IACtHR Series C no 134 (15 September 2005) paras 140–46, 195–241, 335.1, 335.5; Pueblo Bello Massacre v Columbia, IACtHR Series C no 140 (31 January 2006) paras 163, 169–212, 296.3, 296.4; Baldeón-Garcia v Peru IACtHR Series C no 147 (6 April 2006) paras 127–30, 139–69, 218.4, 218.5; Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil IACtHR Series C no 149 (4 July 2006) paras 155–63, 262.3, 262.4; Montero-Aranguren et al v Venezuela (Detention Center of Catia) (Judgment) IACtHR Series C no 150 (5 July 2006) paras 53, 160.2 (Venezuela acknowledged its violation of Arts 5 and 1(1)); Goiburú et al v Paraguay (Condor) IACtHR Series C no 153 (22 September 2006) paras 95–104, 111–33, 192; La Cantuta v Peru (Judgment) IACtHR Series C no 162 (29 November 2006) paras 81–98, 122–29, 135–61, 254.5, 254.6; Anzualdo Castro v Peru (Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs) IACtHR Series C no 202 (22 September 2009) paras 113–14; Las Dos Erres Massacre v Guatemala (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) IACtHR Series C no 211 (24 November 2009) para 213 (‘[T]he impunity that persists in the instant case is experienced by the alleged victims as a new traumatic impact, which has been generated by feelings of anger, frustration and even fear of retaliation due to their search for justice.’); Chitay Nech et al v Guatemala, IACtHR Series C no 212 (25 May 2010) para 209; and Manuel Cepeda Vargas v Colombia, IACtHR Series C no 213 (26 May 2010) para 195.
54 The ECtHR took a similar approach to the IACtHR in Cyprus v Turkey, 2001- IV ECtHR 1 (2001). The HRCBiH has followed the course established by the regional human rights courts and developed criteria for identifying holders of the right. See Unković v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case no CH/99/2150 (Decision on review) (10 May 2002) para 114 and Srebrenica Cases, Case no CH/01/8365 (Decision on admissibility and merits) (7 March 2003) paras 181, 191, 202.
55 The Human Rights Committee has consistently found that the prohibition of cruel treatment found in Art 7 of the ICCPR extends to the suffering caused to families whose relatives have been disappeared or killed while in government custody. See María del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros et al v Uruguay, Communication no 107/1981, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2 (1990) at 138;
Burkino FasoMiriam Sankara et al Communication no 1159/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 (11 April 2006) 4 November 2006); Bousroual v Algeria, CCPR/C/86/D/1085/2002 (15 March 2006); Titiahonjo v Cameroon, CCPR/C/91/D/1186/2003 (26 October 2007); and Zohra Madoui v Algeria, CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006 (1 December 2008).
The IACtHR has found similarly with respect to Art 5 of the ACHR in over 14 cases, See, eg, Blake v Guatemala, IACtHR Series C no 36 (24 January 1998) paras 114–16; and Chitay Nech et al v Guatemala, IACtHR Series C no 212 (25 May 2010) para 209. For a comprehensive list and discussion of the IACtHR’s jurisprudence on right to truth, see D Groome, ‘Right to Truth in the Fight Against Impunity’ (2011) 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law 175.
The ECtHR has found such inhuman treatment to be a violation of Art 3 of the ECHR. See Cyprus v Turkey App no 25781/94 (Judgment)  ECHR 1. In May 2014, the Court awarded the surviving family members of missing persons €30,000,000 for Turkey’s violation of their right to truth. Cyprus v Turkey App no 25781/94 (Judgment) (Just Satisfaction)  ECHR 1 .
The HRCBiH has found similarly in its application of Art 3 of the ECHR. See Srebrenica Cases, Case nos CH/01/8365 (Decision on Admissibility and Merits) (7 March 2003) paras 181, 191, 202; and Unković v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case no CH/99/2150 (Decision on Review) (10 May 2002) paras 101–19.
Art 5 of the ACHPR has been found to offers similar protection for families of disappeared persons. See Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, Communications nos 48/90 et al (AComHPR, 15 November 1999) para 54. See also Article 19 v Eritrea, Communication no 275/2003 (ACHPR, 30 May 2007).
Principle 14 of the Declaration of Human Rights of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) similarly protects against cruel treatment.
56 The Human Rights Committee has found such to be a violation of Art 2(3) of the ICCPR. See Bousroual v Algeria, UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1085/2002 (15 March 2006) ; Zohra Madoui v Algeria, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006 (1 December 2008) . The IACtHR has found in over 10 cases that the right to truth was protected under the right of access to justice. See, eg, Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil, IACtHR Series C no 149 (4 July 2006) para 262.4. For a complete list and comprehensive discussion of the IACtHR’s jurisprudence, see Groome, n 55. The ECtHR came to a similar conclusion with respect to Art 13 of the ECHR—the parallel provision to Arts 8 and 25 of the ACHR. In Cyprus, the court concluded that Turkey’s failure to provide Greek-Cypriots with a remedy to contest interference with their rights under Art 8 of the ECHR and Art 1 of Protocol 1 constituted a violation of Art 13: Cyprus v Turkey ECHR 2001- IV
1, para 192. See also Amnesty International and Others v Sudan, Communication nos 48/90 et al (AComHPR, 15 November 1999) para 51. Principles 3 (equal protection of law) and 5 (right to effective remedy) of the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights would provide a similar basis for application of a right to the truth.
57 See Las Dos Erres Massacre v Guatemala (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) IACtHR Series C no 211 (24 November 2009) para 232.
58 Vélez Restrepo and Family v Columbia (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) IACtHR Series C no 248 (3 September 2012) paras 233–52.
59 La Cantuta v Perú (Judgment) IACtHR Series C no 162 (29 November 2006) para 189.
Burkino Faso ,Miriam Sankara et al, Communication no 1159/2003 , UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 (11 April 2006) (4 November 2006); see also Madoui v Algeria UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006 (1 December 2008) paras 3.4–3.6.
61 Cyprus v Turkey, ECHR 2001- IV 1, para 161.
62 Unković v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case no CH/99/2150 (Decision on Review) (10 May 2002) para 126. See also Srebrenica Cases, Case nos CH/01/8365 et al (Decision on Admissibility and Merits, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina) (7 March 2003) para 181.
63 Article 19 v Eritrea, Communication no 275/2003 (ACHPR, 30 May 2007). See also Constitutional Rights Project and Another v Nigeria, Communication nos 143/95 and 150/96 (AComHPR, 5 November 1999). Note, Art 19 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child obliges state parties to gives a child’s family members ‘essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member or members of the family’.
64 See, eg, Bámaca-Velásquez v Guatemala (Order of the Court) IACtHR Series C no 70 (25 November 2000) paras 199–200.
65 These remedies included: conducting an investigation; publishing the IACtHR’s judgment (factual sections); showing a documentary about the massacre; conducting a public ceremony; building a monument commemorating the event; and creating a web page. Las Dos Erres Massacre v Guatemala (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) IACtHR Series C no 211 (24 November 2009) paras 149, 310.
66 See LD Johnson, ‘Ten Years Later: Reflections on the Drafting’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 368–79, 378. See also Prosecutor v Karadžić and Mladić (Review of the Indictments Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence), ICTY, IT-95-5-R6 and IT-95-18-R61 (11 July 1996) para 3.
67 The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has been involved in the excavation of over 3,000 mass graves and been at the forefront of using the latest forensic techniques to identify mortal remains. See <www.icmp.int/> accessed 12 December 2017. In December 2014, the foreign ministers of several European countries signed an agreement recognizing the important role that ICMP plays and conferring upon it a legal basis for global operations.
68 Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment on the Appeals of the Prosecutor and the Defence against Trial Chamber I’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008) ICC-01/04-01/06OA9OA10 (11 July 2008) paras 30, 38, 64, and 97–99.
69 See, eg, OHCHR, Right to the Truth, Human Rights Resolution 2005/66, fifty-ninth meeting, 20 April 2005. ‘Acknowledging also that the right to the truth may be characterized differently in some legal systems as the right to know or the right to be informed or freedom of information’.