41 system on human rights on this matter, considers that the relatives were themselves victims of a violation of their personal integrity. 173. Moreover, the Commission observes that, on the one hand, the press establishes that the remains of the victims executed were buried in a common grave in the Dominican Republic; on the other hand, a document issued by a military authority asserts that the remains were turned over to the relatives. The IACHR notes that the representatives allege that the victims were buried in a Dominican common 185 grave and the State does not refute the facts in its allegations. In that regard, the IACHR considers that the State has not provided sufficient evidence that would help determine that the victims executed were turned over to their relatives. Based on the foregoing, and assuming that the remains were not turned over to their relatives, the Commission considers that to be additional suffering for the relatives, for having been denied the opportunity to bury the remains in a place of their choosing and according to their beliefs. . 174. Last, as it has been demonstrated, the State is responsible for having failed to seriously investigate the arbitrary and extra-judicial execution of the aforementioned victims, and because the incidents remain unpunished. In that regard, the Court has established that the absence of effective 186 recourse constitutes a source of additional suffering and anxiety for the relatives of the victims , who, in the instant case, more than ten years after the incidents, are still waiting for justice to be done. 175. The Commission further points out, that it requested that the petitioners provide a complete list of relatives of the deceased persons that they considered victims. In their response, the petitioners provided the names of some of the relatives but stated that, on the one hand, some of the victims and their relatives had been illegally repatriated to Haiti which placed them in a vulnerable situation and they were forced to move frequently, and on the other hand, the earthquake of 2010 created technical difficulties to locate the victims and their relatives. Therefore, they said that they reserved the right to submit an updated list of victims and relatives in the future. Based on the foregoing and on the evidence in the case file, the Commission includes as victims the relatives that have been identified at the time this report is issued. The Commission also takes note of the reasons presented by the petitioners regarding the complexity of the situation and recalls that the Dominican Republic has obligations with regard to all victims and their relatives, and it is therefore the responsibility of the State to carry out an investigation to find them and identify them. 176. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State violated Article 5 of the Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of the relatives of the victims who were executed and identified in paragraph 103. With regard to the detainees Right to personal liberty, to personal integrity, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection 187 (Articles 7 , 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention), in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument 185 Petitioners’ document dated May 5, 2009 and December 8, 2009. IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 104; IA Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 261. Also see, IA Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 145; IA Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 145; IA Court H.R. Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 94. 187 Article 7: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. […] 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detainee shall be brought promptly before a judge or other office authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice Continúa… 186