mother and maternal grandmother was especially severe.” 363 In this regard, the Court observes that, by affidavit, Martha Graciela Olguín stated: “When they read the sentence of life imprisonment, I felt that my heart was breaking. I think my mother and I were the only ones who cried […]. It was terrible. Perhaps we cried because we were the only ones that realized what this meant. Or almost, because everything that followed was worse; the collapse of the family, the loss of my son.” [… The imprisonment of Lucas Matías Mendoza was a] torture that went outside the prison to the whole family. We have suffered so many moments of uncertainty, so much anguish. We lived awaiting ‘phone calls, visits, transfers, trying to find out where he had been taken, how he was doing.” 364 282. Also, according to this social report, Ms. Olguín “recalled how traumatic it was to see [Lucas Matías] beaten, hurt, and to imagine what he had was enduring in prison, because he never told them anything about his life inside.” 365 According to this inmate’s mother, these concerns were made more acute owing to the fact that Lucas Matías suffered from problems with is eye sight. 366 Regarding Elba Mercedes Pajón, the Court observes that the social report indicated that, according to her, “in some way we were all prisoners.” Lastly, regarding the effects on Lucas Lautano Mendoza, son of Lucas Matías Mendoza, the social report indicated that the child has an ambivalent attitude towards his father. 367 283. Based on the above, the Court considers that the State violated the right recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Marta Graciela Olguín, Elba Mercedes Pajón and Lucas Lautano Mendoza. B.1.4. Next of kin of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal 284. Regarding to the presumed effects on the personal integrity of Florinda Rosa Cajal, mother of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, the Court observes that she stated in an affidavit: [She could] not put into words what [she felt] as a mother; what it meant that they had condemned [her] son to life imprisonment […]. [T]o think of him locked up for life there was death itself. [… She didn’t know if [she] wanted to die or what happened […]. Since Saúl [Cristian Roldán Cajal] was locked up, but especially since he was sentenced to life imprisonment, it was not the same. Above all, [her] health deteriorated. Prison marked [them] all in some way. Obviously, it is worse for Saúl […]. Before, [she] could go more often because [she] was better, but over the years [she has] been very ill, physically but also mentally. Sometimes [she gets] a paralysis. [She gets] medical checkups in a care facility all the time because [she] sometimes get heavy pressure on the chest and heart. And [she gets] depressed a lot, and [her] children ask [her] to get better but [she] can’t.” 368 285. As for the alleged harm to the personal integrity of Juan Caruso, Florinda Rosa Cajal’s companion, the Court notes that it has no evidence to prove this; accordingly, it will not rule in this regard. 363 Cf. Social report on Lucas Matías Mendoza of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 6940). 364 Cf. Testimony by affidavit of Martha Graciela Olguín of August 22, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1422). 365 Cf. Social report on Lucas Matías Mendoza of November 30, 2011. (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 6941). 366 Cf. Testimony by affidavit of Martha Graciela Olguín of August 22, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1422). 367 Cf. Social report on Lucas Matías Mendoza of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 6942). 368 1405). Cf. Testimony by affidavit of Florinda Rosa Cajal of August 22, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1404 and 92