58 205. The Court has already indicated that the representatives of the alleged victims or their families can claim rights different from those pleaded by the Commission in its application, and it has created the exception that these should abide by the facts already contained therein (supra para. 161) 206. In its most recent jurisprudence in cases of massacres, the Court has reiterated that the relatives of the victims of certain human rights violations, such as massacres, may, in turn, become victims of violations to their personal integrity231. The Court established in the Case of the Ituango Massacres that “in a case such [as this one], the Court considers that evidence is not necessary to demonstrate the grave infringements to the mental integrity of the relatives of the executed victims232.” In this type of cases the Court has considered the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin to be violated, due to the additional suffering and pain that they have endured because of the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities regarding the facts233, and due to the lack of effective remedies234. The Court has considered that “performing an effective investigation is an essential and conditioning element to protect certain rights that are affected or nullified by these situations,235” as with the right to humane treatment in the instant case. 207. Likewise, the Court considers that in the instant case it cannot fail to note the State’s policy during the internal conflict, which was comprised of military acts, including massacres and “scorched earth” operations (supra para. 71 and 73), objective was to destroy the entire core family unit, which, by the nature of a massacre itself, affected the entire family in the broader sense. The Las Dos Erres Massacre falls within this context. 208. As established, the Court granted full juridical effects to State’s partial recognition of international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the two alleged surviving victims and 153 alleged victims, next of kin of those deceased in the massacre (supra para. 36). The State itself recognized the alleged victims’ difficulties in obtaining justice due to the indiscriminate use of judicial remedies such as the appeal for legal protection. 209. Regarding the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the deceased in the massacre, and since the search for justice continues, during the public hearing Ms. Felicita Herenia Romero Ramirez expressed that she was “angry but also sad because we have not obtained justice, and this is the main thing we ask for.” She added that “the State protects [those] who committed this massacre, as some of them are still public officers, and this infuriates us.” Likewise, Mr. Francisco Arriaga Alonzo, another alleged victim, in his statements before a notary public, indicated that they felt 231 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 19, para. 146; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 34, para. 137, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 27, para. 335. 232 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 19, para. 146, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 17, para. 262. 233 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114 to 116; Case of Albán Cornejo et al v. Ecuador, supra note 18, para. 46, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 23, para. 163. 234 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra note 36, para. 113 to 115; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 125, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 133. 235 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 234, para. 110, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 23, para. 115.