100 137. It would be incoherent to limit the determination of the victims to what is established in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings in this case, in which the majority of the victims precisely have not been identified, due to the modus operandi of the massacre and the grave lack of compliance with the State’s duty to provide protection (supra paras. 96.43 to 96.47 and 116 to 123). This lack of identification is, in turn, one of the key aspects to assess the ineffectiveness of the domestic investigations and proceedings in the instant case (infra paras. 216 to 240). As was expounded in the considerations regarding Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (infra paras. 195 to 241), one of the conditions to effectively ensure the right to life is necessarily reflected in the duty to investigate abridgments of said rights. Thus, the obligation to investigate cases of violation of the right to life, are a key aspect of establishment of the responsibility of the State in the instant case. 138. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, the Court deems that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, to humane treatment, and to life, embodied in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of said treaty, to the detriment of a certain number of victims –whom the State itself mentioned were “approximately 49”–, among whom the following have been individually identified: José Rolan Valencia, Sinaí Blanco Santamaría, Antonio María Barrera Calle, Álvaro Tovar Muñoz, Jaime Pinzón, Raúl Morales, Edwin Morales, Manuel Arévalo, Hugo Fernando Martínez Contreras, Diego Armando Martínez Contreras, Omar Patiño Vaca, Eliécer Martínez Vaca, Gustavo Caicedo Rodríguez, Enrique Pinzón López, Luis Eduardo Pinzón López, Jorge Pinzón López, José Alberto Pinzón López, Jaime Riaño Colorado and Uriel Garzón and Ana Beiba Ramírez. * * * 139. In their written brief containing pleadings and motions, the representatives asserted that the State violated Articles 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, although they did not substantiate that assertion and they did not reiterate it in their final oral and written pleadings. The Court notes that the facts alleged are analyzed in light of Articles 5, 8(1) and 25 of the Convention (supra paras. 130 to 138 and infra paras. 195 to 241). b) Violation of the right to humane treatment of the next of kin of the victims 140. Both the Commission and the representatives alleged the abridgment of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims. In this regard they stated that the latter have suffered the psychological impact and have suffered deep grief and anguish as a direct consequence of the circumstances of the massacre; of being present when the victims were detained by heavily armed men; of having found the mutilated corpses of some of these persons; of the forced disappearance and the lack of opportunity to bury their next of kin in accordance with their traditions, values or beliefs; of having been displaced; of inaction and lack of investigation by the State to punish those responsible, and of the massacre not having been investigated immediately and effectively, which continues to have a direct impact on their security and mental situation. They also alleged that the State had taken no measures to protect said next of kin from harassment and aggressions, which has generated feelings of deep insecurity and anguish.