191. Consequently, the Court considers that the State has not demonstrated that it had taken sufficient and effective measures to prevent the threats and acts of harassment against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, in the specific context of the State of Falcón at that time. Therefore, the Court finds that the State did not fulfill its obligation to adopt the necessary and reasonable measures to effectively guarantee the rights to humane treatment [personal integrity] and freedom of thought and expression of Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, and thereby failed to comply with the obligation enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 13 (1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * 192. With regard to Article 444 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code235 concerning the crime of slander, the Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives presented sufficient elements to justify the reasons why they considered that the norm invoked by the plaintiff in the aforementioned proceeding is ambiguous and broad, or why its very existence had deterred Mr. Uzcátegui from filing complaints before the national or international authorities in connection with alleged human rights violations or from issuing opinions criticizing the authorities. Consequently, the Court shall not proceed to examine the compatibility of said Article of the Criminal Code with Articles 2 and 9 of the Convention. B.3. Alleged violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of the relatives of Néstor and Luis Enrique Uzcátegui 193. As established in its case law236, the Court notes that the relatives of Néstor José Uzcátegui and Luis Enrique Uzcátegui were affected in different ways, namely: i) they were present when police violently entered and executed Néstor Uzcátegui (supra para. 140); ii) they witnessed and were affected by several of the threats and acts of harassment against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui (supra para. 134); iii) some of them had to leave their place of residence due to the threats and harassment (supra paras. 91, 93 and 95), and even move to other States, and iv) they suffered psychological and mental consequences, which presumably caused them suffering and had other negative effects on their lives. 194. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated its obligation to respect the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], enshrined in Article 5(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the parents of Néstor José Uzcátegui, Luis Gilberto Uzcátegui and Yrma Josefina Jiménez; his brothers Carlos Eduardo, Luis Enrique, Irmely Gabriela, Paula Yulimar and Gleimar Coromoto; José Gregorio Mavarez Jiménez and José Leonardo Mavarez Jiménez, and his niece Josianni de Jesús Mora Uzcátegui. See also, inter alia, Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03. Series A No. 18, paras. 112 to 172. 235 Article 444 of the Criminal Code states: “Anyone who, in communicating with several persons gathered together or separately, accuses an individual of a particular act capable of exposing him to public scorn or hatred, or offensive to his honor or reputation, shall be punished with a prison sentence of three to eighteen months. If the offense is committed in a public document or through writings or drawings disseminated or exposed to the public, or through other means of publicity, the penalty shall be thirty months in prison.” 236 Cf. Case Castillo Páez V. Peru. Merits. Judgment of 3 of November 1997. Series C No. 34, Operative Paragraph 4 and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 301 and 302. Also see Case Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114 and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. V. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 119. 48