the Commission will analyze whether in the instant case the State violated Article 5.1 of the American Convention.79 79. As regards Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar, the IACHR observes that they were being chased by six police officers, some of whom began shooting at them. Add to that the fact that Mr. Huacón was later taken out of the vehicle and was shot in the leg by officer Carbo. The IACHR notes that Mr. Huacón remained alive for some minutes before being shot again in the chin. The IACHR considers it reasonable to conclude that said situation generated enormous anxiety and fear for both Mr. Huacón and for Ms. Salazar about what would happen to them. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva. 80. The Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated on a number of occasions that the next-of-kin of victims of grave human rights violations may, in turn, be considered victims. 80 The Commission has likewise determined that "that the single loss of a loved one as a consequence of the arbitrary use of force by security forces (...), followed by the further lack of clarification and impunity, permits the inference of an adverse effect on the physical and psychological integrity of the immediate family unit of those killed."81 81. Regarding impunity, the Court has stated that: The absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the determination of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their corresponding responsibilities.82 82. In the instant case, the Commission has already determined that it has been established that Walter Huacón and Mercedes Salazar lost their lives due to extrajudicial execution by police agents, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights that inevitably caused suffering for their next-of-kin. In addition, the instant case is exacerbated by impunity, given that no one has been convicted for what happened. The Commission further notes the threats alleged to have been made against family members of the two victims during the proceedings conducted under the criminal jurisdiction of the police: allegations that the State did not contest. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the family members of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva, identified in this report on the merits. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83. Based on the determinations of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State is responsible for violating Articles 4.1 (right to life), 5.1 (right to personal integrity), 8.1 (right to judicial guarantees), and 25.1 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS TO THE ECUADORIAN STATE THAT IT: 1. Make full reparation for the human rights violations declared in this report, including fair compensation for material and moral damage, as well as measures of satisfaction agreed upon with the next-of-kin; The Inter-American Court has established that inclusion by the IACHR of articles of the American Convention at the merits stage "does not entail a violation of the [State's] right of defense" in cases in which the State was aware of the facts pointing to their alleged violation. See: I/A Court HR. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 50. 80 I/A Court HR. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 249. 81 IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488. Merits. Member of the Barrios family. Venezuela. July 26, 2010, par. 227. 82 I/A Court HR. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008, par. 102. 79 12