430. The Court finds, nevertheless that there is no need for a specific ruling on violation of the right to know the truth, given the violations declared above and the particular details of the instant case. H. Conclusion 431. The Court finds, in summary, that there were irregularities in the handling of the scene of the events and in the removal of the bodies and a lack of rigor in performing the 1997 autopsies, and as a result, the initial procedures and the first measures to secure the evidence were not even minimally diligent. Moreover, the processes before the Peruvian courts were not developed within a reasonable period, and the State has not demonstrated that it conducted all the necessary steps to locate one of the accused who is a fugitive and in contempt. Based on these arguments and on the State’s partial recognition of responsibility, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in injury of the family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, to wit, Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, Herma Luz Cueva Torres, Florentín Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros and Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe, in the terms of the foregoing paragraphs. XI RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS 432. The Court will use this chapter to outline the arguments of the parties and the interAmerican Commission and then rule on the merits of the allegations that Article 5 of the American Convention was breached in injury of the family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 433. The Commission said that the State had not provided sufficient judicial guarantees for the alleged victims, as it had not conducted a diligent, effective investigation or attributed responsibilities to the principals and abettors of the alleged extrajudicial executions of their relatives. The Commission argued that the failure of authorities to deliver true justice had violated the personal integrity of the families by prolonging the already painful events they had lived through as they lost their loved ones to alleged extrajudicial execution. In the view of the Commission, other episodes the families had suffered through were that the State had not informed them about the transfer or burial of the bodies or notified them about the findings of the autopsies on the bodies of the alleged victims or the causes and circumstances of their deaths, and finally, it had denied them any real access to justice, as the family members needed to contend with “the slow pace of the process, […] the attempts to cover up the deaths and the lack of diligence by authorities in both the ordinary courts and the military jurisdiction.” The Commission emphasized that the alleged victims had been subjected to disinformation by the State when it did not allow them to know the whereabouts of their family members. 434. The Commission contended more specifically that the facts surrounding the alleged extrajudicial executions of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza amounted to breaches of Article 5 of the American Convention, in injury of their families. The Commission noted, in this regard, that the Court had repeatedly established in its case law that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may also be victims in their own right. The Commission also pointed to the Court’s case law regarding the rights of the families of victims of extrajudicial execution, namely that there is