responsibility for the violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention.170 191. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s right to life and freedom of expression, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. B. Examination of the violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5(1))171 and the right to freedom of movement and residence (Article 22(1))172 in relation to the general obligation to respect rights (Article 1(1)) of the American Convention 192. The Inter-American Court has held repeatedly that the relatives of victims of certain types of human rights violations can, in turn, be victims.173 Specifically, the Court has indicated that the mental and emotional welfare of victims’ relatives can be affected by the particular circumstances suffered by their loved ones, and by the subsequent acts or omissions of the domestic authorities in light of those events.174 The Inter-American Court has additionally established that “the obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that the State must adopt to guarantee the rights established in the Convention. Additionally, the State must, if possible, try to reestablish a right that has been violated and, if applicable, repair the damage produced by human rights violations.”175 In relation thereto, the InterAmerican Court has established that the absence of effective remedies is an additional source of suffering and distress for the relatives of victims. 193. The Court has also established in several cases that the right to freedom of movement and residence, protected under Article 22(1) of the American Convention, is an essential condition for the free development of the person and includes, inter alia, the right of individual who are in a State lawfully to circulate freely within it and to choose their place of residence. This right can be violated by laws or by de facto restrictions when the State has not established the conditions or provided the means for its exercise. Such de facto violations can occur when a person is the victim of threats or harassment and the State fails to provide the necessary guarantees so that he or she can travel and reside freely within the territory in question.176 The Court has similarly held that the lack of an effective investigation into violent acts can cause or perpetuate exile or forced displacement.177 170 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196. Para. 97. 171 respected.” “Article 5. Right to Humane Treatment. 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity 172 “Article 22. Freedom of Movement and Residence. 1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law.” 173 I/A Court H.R., 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. Para. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164. Para. 102. 174 I/A Court H.R., 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. Para. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. Para. 96. 175 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192. Para. 98; I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 166; I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186. Para. 142; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. Para. 99. 176 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248. para. 220; 176 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192. Paras. 140-144; I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213. 177 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248. para. 220.