roadmaps and the security problems detected, none of the records found suggest quality and seriousness in the research carried out”300. 333. In view of the foregoing, the Commission emphasizes that a deficient or null preservation of the documentary collections related to a case of serious human rights violations for long periods of time seriously compromises the international responsibility of the State. This is the case since it prevents victims and their next of kin from efficiently accessing the information held by the State, as well as analyzing and evaluating the documentation, proposing new evidence measures and, in general, evaluating and controlling the action of the authorities in charge of directing the investigation 301 . Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State has not complied to date with its obligation to guarantee the petitioners access to the state archives where information related to the attack on the AMIA is stored. 334. Based on what is stated throughout this section, the Commission considers that the Argentine State violated to the detriment of the petitioners the right of access to information enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. E. Right to humane treatment of the next of kin (Article 5 of the American Convention) 335. The right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5 (1) of the American Convention, establishes that "every person has the right to have their physical, mental, and moral integrity respected." The organs of the inter-American system have repeatedly indicated that the next of kin of the victims of certain serious human rights violations may, in turn, be victims of violations of their personal integrity302. In this sense, the Court has determined on multiple occasions that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims should be considered violated due to the additional suffering and anguish that they have suffered as a result of subsequent actions or omissions of the state authorities with respect to those facts and due to the absence of effective remedies”303. Indeed, “the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires the procedural determination of the most complete possible historical truth”304. 336. For its part, the Commission notes that the 2012 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the fight against terrorism highlights the importance of fully recognizing and repairing to victims of terrorism. It also recognizes that they have the right to establish representative organizations and that "[t]he states must also ensure the rights of organizations that represent victims of terrorism not to be the object of unlawful interference by non-state entities”305. In addition, it indicates that full and effective reparation must include, in an appropriate manner, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. 337. The Commission finds that, as a consequence of the attack on the AMIA building, 85 people lost their lives and 151 were injured as a result of the attack. The TOF 3 ruling contains a list of 84 deceased persons. The Commission highlights that, in their brief of December 30, 2016, the petitioners stated that one of the victims, who was initially presented as NN, was recently identified by the judicial authorities and is part of the group of Annex 8. UFI AMIA, Management Report December 2016, p. 23. Annex 19 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. IACHR, Right to Truth in the Americas, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.152, Doc. 2, August 13, 2014, para. 118. 302 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206. 303 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206. 304 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. 102. See alsoI/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 261; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 145. 305 United Nations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson. Framework principles for ensuring the human rights of victims of terrorism*. June 4, 2012 . A/HRC/20/14. Chapter C, para. 48. 300 301 63