B.3 Conclusion 86. In view of the analysis in this section on the State’s recognition of international responsibility and on the proven facts, the Court finds that Argentina is responsible for (1) violating the right to health, recognized in Article 26 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article (1) thereof, to the detriment of Cristina Brítez Arce; (ii) violating the right to life, established in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Cristina Brítez Arce and (iii) violating the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Cristina Brítez Arce. VII-2 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY AND OF THE CHILD, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION110 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 87. The Commission indicated that the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection of the family members of Cristina Brítez Arce was an autonomous source of their suffering and impotence since questions remain on the cause of her death. It claimed that there could be a logical inference regarding the suffering of Ezequiel Martín, 15 years old, and Vanina Verónica, 12 years old, as a consequence of the death of their mother, the search for justice and truth during the legal proceedings and the delay in the investigations. Thus, the Commission considered that the State violated the right to the mental and moral integrity of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 88. The representative concurred with the arguments presented by the Commission in its Merits Report, according to which the State is responsible for violating the right to personal integrity of the children of Ms. Brítez Arce. 89. The State recognized its international responsibility for violating the rights identified as violated in the Merits Report. B. Considerations of the Court 90. The Court has repeatedly affirmed that family members of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.111 The Court has held that it can declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of direct family members or other persons with close ties to the victims due to the additional suffering that they have endured as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones and for subsequent acts or omissions of State 110 Articles 5(1), 17 and 19 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 176 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 87. 111 26