24 132. The loss of a family member causes emotional pain and suffering to all members of the 84 immediate family circle. The execution of any individual is in and of itself a grave violation of fundamental rights. The Inter-American Court has indicated that “it is a characteristic of human nature” that a person who is subjected to serious acts of violence and abuse “experiences moral 85 86 suffering.” Consequently, “evidence is not needed to arrive at this conclusion.” 133. According to the facts that have been described throughout this report, it is evident that the members of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez’ immediate family have experienced moral suffering, including 87 feelings of insecurity, frustration and impotence as a consequence of his execution. In this regard, the Commission recalls that in keeping with the case law of the Inter-American Court, “the relatives of victims 88 of human rights violations can themselves be victims.” 134. In this sense, the State is also responsible for having failed to seriously, impartially and effectively investigate the execution of the victim within a reasonable time period and in keeping with the principles of due process. With regard to this, the Court has established that the absence of effective 89 remedies constitutes an additional source of suffering and anguish for the relatives of the victims, who in this case, almost 17 years after the execution of their relative, have sought justice but have not found it, according to what this report has established in the analysis on the violation of articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 135. The Commission remarks that the relatives of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez have pushed this investigation before the State that should be protecting their rights. The allegations and indications that went unchallenged with regard to the direct actions of the cover-up, as well as the lack of due diligence in investigating the facts of the case and punishing the perpetrators of the violations herein analyzed, contribute to prolonging the suffering of the relatives of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez caused by the violation of fundamental rights and constitute a duty of the State to provide an adequate judicial response. 136. In this case, the testimony of the relatives of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, which is recorded in the judicial case and in the case file of the Commission, reveal the suffering and anguish that was caused to them through the violations committed by members of the Argentine State. Those violations have cause profound moral damage whose consequences clearly persist to the present day. It is worth highlighting that in the hearing held in IACHR headquarters on October 17, 2003, during the 118th regular period of sessions, Mrs. Nilda del Valle Maldonado, the widow of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, stated, “I feel completely abandoned by justice... I want justice.” Likewise, during the hearing held on March 19, 2010, the daughter of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, Marlin, stated through her tears that, “I’ve now spent more years without my father than the years I enjoyed with him” and requested that her father’s case be “an example 90 of honesty, struggle and justice.” 84 Case of Blake, Judgment of January 24, 1998 (Merits), Ser. C No. 36, paras. 112-16; more specifically, see Blake v. Honduras, Judgment of January 22, 1999 (Reparations), Opinion of Judge A. A. Cançado Trindade, paragraphs 43-45 (cites international case law on the rights of immediate family who have experienced suffering as a consequence of violations of the rights of a loved one, including siblings). 85 Inter-American Court, Case of Aloeboetoe et al. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paragraph 52. 86 Ibidem. 87 Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70. paragraph 160. 88 Inter-American Court. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 101; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, para. 160; Case of Cantoral Benavides, para. 105; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), para. 175; and Case of Castillo PáeZapata Reparations, (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 59. 89 Inter-American Court, Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 261. Also see Inter-American Court, Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre.” Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 145; InterAmerican Court, Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre.” Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; Inter-American Court, Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 94. 90 Annex 38. Audio of the hearings held in the framework of the hearings held for this case.