53 180. Therefore, the Court finds that an autonomous violation of Article 11(1) and 11(2) of the Convention has not been proved in the instant case. X ARTICLE 17 (RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY)131 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS)132 THEREOF 181. In their brief with pleadings and motions, the representatives stated that they would prove the alleged violation of the rights of the family established in Article 17 of the Convention to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and “his next of kin,” but they failed to develop this allegation in any of their briefs. 182. The Commission did not allege the violation of this article. 183. Citing the Court’s case law, the State indicated that “the alleged violation of Article 17 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims in this case […] has already been examined in relation to the violation of the right to personal integrity of [the] next of kin.”133 184. In this regard, the Court finds that it has not been proved, nor even specifically alleged, that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights of the family established in Article 17 of the Convention. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT),134 13 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION)135 AND 16 (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)136 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF, 131 The relevant part of Article 17 establishes that: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. […] 132 Article 1(1) establishes that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 133 Cf. García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 245; Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 205, and the Yean and Bosico Children v. the Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 197. 134 The relevant part of Article 5 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 to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 135 The relevant part of Article 13 establishes that: