VIII.3 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY,192 AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 193 169. In this section, the Court will set forth and examine the arguments on human rights violations that have to do exclusively with Mr. Movilla’s relatives. These are the allegations regarding the rights to personal integrity and the protection of the family, and the rights of the child, based on Articles 5(1), 5(2), 17 and 19 of the American Convention. A) Arguments of the Commission and the parties 170. The Commission argued that the forced disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio in unclear circumstances, which were not clarified or investigated with due diligence, constitutes an independent source of suffering and impotence to his family, which to this date have no certainty about the cause and circumstances of his whereabouts. It therefore found that the State, to the detriment of the relatives, had violated the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 171. The representatives argued that Pedro Movilla’s entire family had found it materially impossible to “heal the wounds” caused by the actions of the Colombian State, before and after Mr. Movilla’s forced disappearance. They maintained that the Colombian State had failed to respect or guarantee the rights to personal integrity and the protection of the family and the rights of the child of Mr. Movilla’s children. They also stated that this was equivalent to torture due to the total absence of State protection with regard to what occurred, in addition to the evidence pointing to the fact that the State that was behind the persecution and disappearance of their father. They said that “these effects also had a gender element, because Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio’s disappearance meant that his wife, Candelaria Vergara, was forced to assume sole responsibility for herself and her three children. The double burden of breadwinner and homemaker fell squarely on her shoulders.” Therefore, they asked that the State be held responsible for breaching Articles 5(1), 5(2), 17 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1). 172. The State acknowledged the violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, since the right to personal integrity of some of Mr. Movilla’s relatives was affected by omission as a result of the shortcomings of the criminal investigation until 2019 (supra paras. 14, 17, 32, 34 and 39). B) Considerations of the Court 173. The Court has repeatedly noted that the relatives of victims of certain human rights violations may also be regarded as victims because of the suffering caused by the violations committed against their loved ones or due to later acts or omissions on the part of State authorities.194 In cases of forced disappearance, the Court has observed that “uncertainty surrounding the whereabouts of loved ones is one of the main sources of psychological and moral suffering for the relatives of disappeared victims.195 In addition, according to the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, “Enforced disappearance can cause deep anguish, suffering and 192 193 194 195 Article 17 of the American Convention. Article 19 of the American Convention. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 114, and Case of Maidanik et al. Uruguay, supra, para. 185. Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 165. 46