Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez. Notwithstanding, the Court deems that the facts of this case, wherein the parties have had ample opportunity to present motions and defense, demonstrate a harm to this right, as is exposed below. A. Considerations of the Court 102. The facts set forth in Chapter VII of this Judgment show the close bond between Ms. Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez and her son Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and her efforts to try to ensure that he be hospitalized at the appropriate health institutions, given the type of lesion he presented and his physical condition at the time (supra paras. 56 to 58, 60, 66, 69, 71, 73, and 75). In this regard, the Court also considers it relevant to note that the statement rendered by Mr. Francisco Rubén Vargas Balcazar, 114 the husband of Ms. Vera Valdez and stepfather of Peter Miguel Vera Vera, who according to the statement made at the public hearing, accompanied her at various times and shared in her efforts to get Mr. Vera Vera to receive adequate medical care, also states this. 103. In addition, during the public hearing, Ms. Vera Valdez expressed that her life has been sad since she lost her son, given that “they denied him all his rights […] to live.” She also expressed that given the facts that he experienced, she felt “very bad” and was in poor health. Lastly, she mentioned that she hoped for “justice” and that while her son was injured, they did not “give him the medical care needed so that he [could] live.” 104. On other occasions, the Court has considered the existence of a violation to the right to mental and moral integrity of some next of kin due to the suffering they endured given the actions or omissions of State authorities,115 taking into account, among others, the existence of a close family relationship.116 105. For the Court, it is clear that the facts established in this Judgment demonstrate the suffering that Ms. Vera Valdez had to endure due to the poor treatment of her son while he was deprived of his liberty with a gunshot wound, for the treatment she received upon attempting to secure him proper medical care, and for the failure to determine responsibility for his death. The Court does not consider that it is not necessary to go into more depth, and therefore, deems that the State is responsible for the violation of the right enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Ms. Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez. 114 Cf. Statement rendered before a notary public (affidávit) by Mr. Francisco Rubén Vargas Balcázar (case file of Merits, tomo I, folios 610 to 611). 115 Cf. Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 144; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 4, para. 235, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 12, para. 133. 116 Cf. Case of B��maca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 163; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 94, para. 127. 41