42 effectiveness that such investigations should respect.128 In the instant case, the State, after receiving the complaint filed in 1990, should have conducted a genuine and impartial investigation in order to rule on the merits within a reasonable time. 158. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the domestic procedures and proceedings have not constituted effective remedies to guarantee access to justice, the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible, and the integral reparation of the consequences of the violations. As a result of these findings, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Graciela De León and Patria and Franklin Portugal. 159. Furthermore, the Court finds that the lack of investigation into the alleged torture to which Mr. Portugal was subjected is subsumed under the violation declared in the preceding paragraph in relation to the failure to investigate the forced disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal, so that it does not find it necessary to undertake further analysis in this regard in light of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. IX ARTICLE 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT)129 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 160. The Commission alleged in its application that the mental and moral integrity of the permanent companion of Heliodoro Portugal, Graciela De León, and of his children, Patria and Franklin, “was affected as a direct consequence of the disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal, the lack of knowledge regarding his ultimate fate, and the failure to investigate the facts.” 161. The representatives alleged, additionally, that the children of Patria Portugal, namely, Román and Patria Kriss Mollah Portugal should also be considered victims of a violation of their mental and moral integrity. 162. The State argued that “the alleged effect on the personal integrity of Heliodoro Portugal’s next of kin was incidental to the alleged effect on the personal integrity of Heliodoro Portugal himself” and that, since the Court does not have competence regarding the effect on his personal integrity, it does not have competence regarding any incidental consequences. 163. The Court has reiterated on many occasions that the relatives of victims of certain human rights violations can also be considered victims.130 In this regard, in other cases the Court has found that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of a victim may be violated due to the additional suffering caused as a result of the particular 128 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 115. 129 In this regard, this Article establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with regard for the inherent dignity of the human person. 130 Cf. Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 114 to 116; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 18, para. 112, and Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 102.