considered victims.128 In this regard, the Court has considered that their right to mental and moral integrity can be infringed as a consequence of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and of subsequent acts or omissions of domestic authorities in relation to these events.129 129. In the instant case, the Commission regarded as established fact that Mirey Trueba lost his life in circumstances where state agents deployed deadly force unnecessarily and disproportionately with no justification to do so. Additionally, the Commission determined that the men riding with him, which included Vidal Trueba, Mirey Trueba’s brothers, were mistreated and were prevented from providing any type of assistance to the victim. 130. In addition to these circumstances, which in and of themselves constitute a source of suffering and powerlessness, the Commission also concluded in this report that in the instant case no investigation was conducted with due diligence by a competent, independent and impartial authority. In this type of circumstances, the Court has written 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.130 131. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the loss of their loved one in circumstances such as those described in the this report, as well as the absence of truth and justice, caused suffering and anguish for Mr. Trueba’s next of kin, in violation of their right to mental and moral integrity, as provided in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. VI. CONCLUSIONS 132. Based on the considerations of fact and of law put forward throughout this report, the InterAmerican Commission concludes that the Mexican State is responsible for i) violation of the right to life and humane treatment, established in Article 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mirey Trueba; ii) violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, as set forth in Article 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mirey Trueba listed in paragraph 23 of this report; and iii) violation of the right to humane treatment, provided for in Article 5 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mirey Trueba listed in paragraph 23 of this report. 128 IA Court of HR. 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. par. 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164. par. 102. 129 IA Court of HR. 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. par. 112; and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. par. 96. 130 IA Court of HR. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 102; Case of the Massacre of la Rochela v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, par. 195; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 146. 25