194. Thus, for example, in the case of Vélez Restrepo et al. v. Colombia, the Inter-American Court found that photographer Vélez Restrepo and his family were subject to de facto restrictions to their right of freedom of movement and residence, “because the State’s omission to guarantee the right to personal integrity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, by the investigation together with opportune measures of protection or prevention […], gave rise to great insecurity and their well-founded fear that their life and personal integrity were at risk of being violated if they remained in Colombia, which led to their exile.”178 Similarly, in the case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, the Court found a violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention with respect to several individuals who were forced to go into exile, “without being able or wanting to return home owing to a well-founded fear of persecution.”179 In the case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, the Court ruled that the temporary exile of the victim’s relatives on account of threats they received in connection to their search for justice was a violation of Article 22 of the Convention. 195. In light of those judgments and in the application of the principle of iura novit curia, the IACHR finds that it is warranted in this case to examine the infringement of the right to humane treatment and the right to freedom of movement and residence established in Articles 5(1) and 22(1) of the American Convention. In making this assertion, the IACHR observes that although its admissibility report did not address the alleged violation of Articles 5(1) and 22(1), the facts supporting these violations are an integral and essential part of the case and, moreover, they arise from the information and documents provided by the parties over the course of the proceedings before the IACHR. 196. With respect to the violation of the right to humane treatment of the relatives of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal, the Commission observes, as previously stated, that the State is responsible for failing to investigate Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s murder with due diligence. It finds that the absence of a diligent investigation has adversely affected the mental and emotional welfare of the relatives identified in this case, in addition to the suffering and distress caused by the fact that, more than sixteen years after the events, they have neither obtained justice nor been able to learn the truth of what happened. In addition, as mentioned previously, Nelson Carvajal’s relatives suffered repeated threats and harassment, compounded by the lack of protection measures and guarantees of an independent investigation, which had an intimidating and chilling effect on them. Similarly, the lack of protection for the relatives went on for a lengthy period of time, which contributed to their suffering and distress over the State’s failure to investigate, arrest, trial, and punish the perpetrators. This pattern of threats was, in the opinion of the Commission, a serious violation of the right to humane treatment of the relatives of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal. In this sense, the IACHR concludes that the State violated the right enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to the relatives of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal (supra para. 41). 197. With regard to the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence, the petitioner indicated that 9 relatives of Carvajal’s were granted refugee status and the right to asylum, although it stated that they wanted to keep the respective asylum decisions confidential for security reasons. The petitioner stated that Judith Carvajal Carvajal (sister), Cristhian Camilo Motta Carvajal (nephew), and Fernando Augusto Carvajal Carvajal (brother) requested asylum on November 3, 1999, and were granted refugee status on August 2, 2000. It also indicated that the Office of the Prosecutor General of Colombia acknowledged the persecution and threats against Judith Carvajal Carvajal and Fernando Augusto Carvajal Carvajal. According to the petitioner, the Prosecutor’s Office considered the risk posed to Judith Carvajal Carvajal and her nuclear family was serious. 198. The IAPA stated that Gloria Mercedes Carvajal Carvajal (sister), Luz Stella Bolaños Rodríguez (spouse), Paola Andrea Carvajal Bolaños, and María Alejandra Carvajal Bolaños (daughters) requested asylum on August 10, 2006, and were granted refugee status on September 15, 2009. It asserted that the Office of the Prosecutor General of Colombia made a note in Nelson Carvajal’s case file of the death threats received by 178 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. 221. 179 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.