submitted by the representatives after the hearing on the case, the feelings of insecurity and fear experienced by the entire family were exacerbated by the threats against César Luna Valle, given that he was the main driving force behind the proceedings until now, and more recently, on the occasion of his temporary return to Catacamas for the purpose of securing the execution of the arrest warrant issued for Ítalo Iván Lemus. 318 211. In addition, the Court found that certain shortcomings in the proceedings carried out immediately after the death of Mr. Luna López could have caused disturbance in the family group. Regarding the manner in which the body was removed, the Court believes that the authorities’ intrusion at the wake being conducted at the home of Mr. Luna López’s mother represented an interference in the family’s grieving process, particularly since this procedure should have been conducted before his body was released to the family319 (supra paras. 49, 163 and 164). 212. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the State’s lack of prevention in its duty to guarantee the right to life of Mr. Luna López, the psychological, personal and emotional trauma caused by his death, the situation of persistent risk in the case, aggravated by the threats suffered by his family members and certain irregularities which occurred during the initial proceedings of the investigation, have produced suffering and anguish for the family members of Mr. Luna López, in addition to feelings of insecurity, frustration and impotence, affecting their psychological and moral integrity. Consequently, the Court rules that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mariana Lubina López, Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Antonio Luna Valle, César Augusto Luna Valle, Lubina Mariana Luna Valle, Allan Miguel Luna Valle, José Fredy Luna Valle and Roger Herminio Luna Valle. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 213. Under the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 320 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that may have resulted in damage wanted against us […] and [José Ángel Rosa] decided with others to kill me. He confessed this to a friend of mine in Juticalpa, Mr. Ulises Sarmiento, and this man is my friend and he interceded so they would not carry this out in spite of the fact that they had been looking for me for 10 days in places I frequented in Tegucigalpa. They even went to the cemetery believing that I would go there on All Souls’ Day. This was very difficult for me because there were clear indications that he was wanted my life and wanted to kill me.” Carlos Luna Valle also stated in his sworn testimony that his brother César Luna had told him that José Ángel Rosa had plans to murder him and that he had waited outside the cemetery on All Soul’s Day. Cf. Statement of César Augusto Luna Valle rendered in the public hearing before the Court, supra, and statement rendered by affidavit by Carlos Antonio Luna Valle on January 21, 2013 (Merits file, page 580). 318 According to the representatives, César Luna Valle temporarily returned to Catacamas for the purpose of securing the execution of the arrest warrant issued for Ítalo Iván Lemus after the Supreme Court had ruled on the cassation appeal filed by his defense, in an attempt to maintain the conviction of 26 years and 8 months of prison for his material responsibility in the murder of Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna López (Merits file, pages 1044 to 1045). 319 Regarding the removal of the body, Article 188 of the Honduran Code of Criminal Proceedings, in force at the time of the events, established that “[t]he body shall not be removed until the judicial inspection has been conducted to thoroughly examine it, [specifying] the condition in which it was [found] and any injuries, contusions and other signs of violence it may have present[ed]. 320 Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that “[if] the Court decides there is a violation of a right or freedom protected by [this] Convention, it shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that 64