41 When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the human rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, a substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments were delivered at the national level or whether settlements were reached on the civil or administrative responsibility of a State body with regard to the violations committed to the detriment of the next of kin of the persons disappeared or deprived of life, but whether the domestic proceedings allowed real access to justice to be ensured, according to the standards established in the American Convention. 169 159. The Commission recognizes the efforts of the State to redress the damaged caused by the bombardment through judgment of May 20, 2004 issued by the Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, as a result of the action for direct reparation filed by some of the families of the alleged victims and observes that after five years of the ruling, on 2009, the State paid compensation to the families of 16 of the persons that were killed and 13 persons that were wounded and their families. Those efforts constitute a partial reparation for some of the families but they have not had an impact in the lack of investigation and sanction established in the present report. 160. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State has not adopted measures necessary to discharge its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish all those responsible for the deaths of 17 persons and the injuries caused to another 27 in the village of Santo Domingo, in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligation to ensure rights set out in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims who were wounded and the next of kin of the victims listed in Appendix 1 to this report. E. Right to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) 161. Article 5 of the American Convention provides, 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 162. The Inter-American Court has indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, become victims. 170 Specifically, the Court found that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims [may be] violated based on the [...] particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts. 171 163. Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has established that “[t]he obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that the State must adopt to guarantee the rights established in the Convention. Additionally, the State must, if possible, try to reestablish a right that has been violated and, if applicable, repair the damage produced by human 169 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C, No. 140, par. 206 and I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 211. 170 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167, par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, par. 102. I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167, par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155, par. 96. 171