available resources to locate and/or reconstruct the information that the Armed Forces had at their disposal that could determine the whereabouts of Flores Bedregal and identify all its agents that had some responsibility for his forced disappearance. It is not enough to allege that the required information does not exist and in any case the job of determining whether it exists or not can never be left to the organs whose members are being investigation for alleged illicit acts, as was the case in the instant case. 113. Finally, it transpires from all of the above that the Bolivian States has not complied to this day with its obligation to obtain, produce, analyze, classify, organize the information required and provide society as a whole with access to the military archives relating to grave human rights violations in the recent past. If it had done so, the violations described in this Chapter might have been avoided. 114. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 13 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. E. Right to humane treatment (Article 5 in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 115. The right to integrity of the person is enshrined in Article 5(5.1) of the American Convention, which provides “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 116. The Inter-American Commission and the Court have indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, be considered victims.143 In that regard, the Court has ruled that their right to mental and moral integrity [may be] violated based on the ... particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts.144 117. The Commission notes that, in accordance with the Court's case law, “in cases involving forced disappearance of people, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim's next-of-kin is, precisely, a direct consequence of that event, which causes them severe suffering and is made worse, inter alia, by the continued refusal of state authorities to supply information on the victim's whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation to elucidate the facts.”145 118. In the instant case, the Commission considers that the forced disappearance of the victim generated a profound sense of grief, anxiety, and uncertainty in his family members, which has only gone deeper due to the violations described in the foregoing section, including their long search for justice and the absence of information about what happened to their loved one. 119. In light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Article 1(1.1) thereof, to the detriment of the sisters of Mr. Flores Bedregal identified in this report. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 120. The Commission concludes that the State of Bolivia is responsible for violating the rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, freedom of expression, freedom of association, participation in government/public rights, and judicial protection set forth IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488. Merits. Barrios Family, Venezuela. March 16, 2010. 91. IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights. Para. 227; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 112; and Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, par: 102. 144 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, paragraph 96. 145 I/A Court H.R. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 87; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 123; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, paragraph 105. 143 30