XIII RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE SURVIVORS OF THE RÍO NEGRO MASSACRES, IN RELATION TO THE INVESTIGATION AND THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 238. The Inter-American Commission and the representatives argued that the State had violated the right recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention (personal integrity), in relation with Article 1(1) thereof, on the one hand, to the detriment of the survivors of the massacres and, on the other hand, to the detriment of the survivors, but in their capacity as next of kin of other victims of the massacres. Regarding the latter, they stated that the survivors also witnessed the way in which their family members were tortured and extrajudicially executed, which translates into cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. They underscored that some of the survivors were children and that, therefore, “the impact of this type of experiences” was greater. They also indicated that some of the surviving women had been raped and that many of the survivors were forced to hide for years “in the mountains, fleeing from the systematic persecution of which they were victims [and] living in infrahuman conditions.” Regarding the next of kin of the victims, the Commission and the representatives argued that, in cases of massacres and forced disappearances, the pain and anguish suffered by the family members is evident. Lastly, they emphasized that that lack of effective remedies to obtain access to justice and the absence of an investigation into the facts by the State constituted additional sources of suffering for the survivors of the massacres. 239. The State expressed “its partial acknowledgement” of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the survivors of the massacres, as well as to the detriment of the next of kin of the community members “given that the said violation could transcend and persist into the time over which the Court has competence to examine the violations filed against the State […]” (supra para. 17(c)). B. Considerations of the Court 240. In its most recent case law in cases concerning massacres,313 the Court has reiterated that the next of kin of the victims of grave violations of human rights, such as those of the instant case, may, in turn, be victims of violations of their personal integrity. Thus, in this type of case, the Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims has been violated owing to the additional suffering and anguish they have experienced as a result of the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the investigation of the facts314 and to the absence of effective remedies.315 The Court has considered that “conducting an effective investigation is a fundamental and determinant element for the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by these situations.”316 313 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 146; and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 206. 314 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, paras. 114 to 116, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 206. 315 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, supra, paras. 113 to 115, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 206. 316 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 145, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 206. 84