32 Palomino, and Emiliano, Mónica, Mercedes, Rosa and Margarita Palomino-Buitrón, the Court must now decide whether these persons have been victims of said violation. 65. From the facts presented in the instant case, the Court notices that Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino’s sisters and brother had a close bond of affection with him, and that he, on the other hand, had stood in a paternal role towards his younger sisters and brother (supra para. 48(c)). According to the report rendered by expert María del Pilar Raffo-Lavalle de Quiñones Santiago was the eldest son of [Victoria] Margarita, who provided support for the family group, not only in financial terms […]. He lived with his mother and younger siblings Emiliano, Mónica, Mercedes, Rosa and Margarita and played a paternal role in the family. With the children born from three different and absent fathers, this family was in an irregular situation. In the absence of a real, active, and protective father, the eldest brother had taken on this role. 66. Furthermore, in her statement before an official whose acts command full faith and credit (supra para. 48(a)), Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón said that: she ha[s] looked for [his] son for thirteen years…[her] daughters, Dolores, Luzmila and Mónica have helped her in her search; Emiliano could not help because he was on military service; on the weekends he came to visit [her], he just cried, and [her] daughters, also crying, would tell him ‘Santi does not come back'. [Her] children grieve over the loss of the love of Santiago to this day; they love him, he was like a father to them, he cared about them. 67. The Court finds that Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s sisters and brother have endured intense suffering to the detriment of their mental and moral integrity as a result of their brother’s forced disappearance and the circumstances related to it, such as the search they carried out in hospitals, local police stations, detention centers and morgues, hoping to find him alive; the indifference and lack of information or support from government authorities in such search for the victim; the impossibility of giving their brother a decent burial according to their customs, as well as the inordinate delay in the investigation and possible punishment of those responsible for his disappearance, the effect of which is the impunity still attending the instant case (supra para. 54.25). Peru has failed to provide any worthy evidence to contradict these facts. 68. Based on the foregoing and in accordance with its case law,54 the Court finds that the State violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s sisters and brother: María Dolores Gómez-Palomino, Luzmila Sotelo-Palomino, Emiliano, Mónica, Mercedes, Rosa and Margarita Palomino-Buitrón. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION) 54 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, paras. 113 and 114; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 51, para. 211; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Judgment of May 4, 2004, para. 44.