32 140. Therefore, the Commission finds that the loss of a loved one in the circumstances described in the instant case and the lack of a complete and effective investigation have impaired the mental and moral integrity of the wife of Joe Luis Castillo González, Yelitze Moreno de Castillo; his son, Luis César Castillo Moreno, and their next of kin, in addition to the distress and anguish caused by not knowing the truth of what happened. 141. By way of illustration, it is worth noting that in February 2004, Yelitze Moreno de Castillo began psychological treatment at the Psychological and Social Assistance Unit of the organization COFAVIC, in the course of which she was diagnosed with depression that varied from moderate to light and symptoms associated with posttraumatic stress.168 Yelitze Moreno de Castillo still admits to feelings of sadness and loneliness associated with the loss of her husband and with the ensuing changes in her physical health, adaptation to a new job, limitation of social activities, and feelings of vulnerability and insecurity because of the failure to identify those responsible for her husband's murder. 169 142. Furthermore, the child Luis César Castillo Moreno displayed behavioral changes, such as difficulty sleeping, irritability, clinging, fear, and reactions to stimuli connected with the event, such as loud noises from detonations, motorcycles, etc. Those symptoms have lessened over time; however, with the acquisition of language and increased capacity for expression through drawing and imagination, he has begun to ask questions about the incident and his father. 170 143. In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the murder of Joe Luis Castillo González caused profound distress and a radical change in the lives of his closest family members. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right of Yelitze Moreno de Castillo, the child Luis César Castillo Moreno, Yolanda González, Jaime Castillo, Jaime Castillo González, and Julijay Castillo González, to have their mental and moral integrity respected as recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the duty to observe rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. 4. Right to freedom of association (Article 16(1) of the American Convention) 144. Article 16 of the American Convention provides, “Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes.” 145. The Commission notes that this right has two dimensions: one, individual and the other, social. With respect to the individual dimension, the Inter-American Court has found that “those who are protected by the Convention [...] have the right and freedom to associate freely with other persons, without the interference of the public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of the respective right.” 171 As to the collective dimension, the Court has concluded that in exercising the right recognized in Article 16, individuals “enjoy the right and freedom to seek the common achievement of a licit goal, without pressure or interference that could alter or change their purpose.” 172 The Inter-American Court has also ruled that the Series C No. 168, par. 103; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 146. 168 Psychological and Social Assistance Unit, COFAVIC, Psychological Report, June 18, 2007. Annex 1 of the petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 169 Psychological and Social Assistance Unit, COFAVIC, Psychological Report, June 18, 2007. Annex 1 of the petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 170 Psychological and Social Assistance Unit, COFAVIC, Psychological Report, June 18, 2007. Annex 1 of the petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, par. 69. 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, par. 69.