physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats to commit such acts, coercion and other forms of deprivation of liberty.”418 259. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that, owing to the ambiguity of the laws on professional secrecy and the reporting obligation, if Manuela had recourse to the medical services to treat the obstetric emergency that jeopardized her health she could be reported, and this is what happened. Subjecting Manuela to this situation, which ended by totally ruining her life, in addition to discriminatory, constituted an act of violence against women. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation to refrain from any act or practice of violence against women and ensure that its authorities, officials, agents and institutions act in conformity with this obligation, contravening Article 7(a) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. B.7 Conclusion 260. Based on the above, El Salvador is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 4, 5, 11, 24 and 26 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Manuela. The State is also responsible for non-compliance with its obligations under Article 7(a) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. VIII-4 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS419 THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS421 A. 420 IN RELATION TO Arguments of the parties and the Commission 261. The representatives argued that “the Salvadoran State is internationally responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the members of Manuela’s family.” They indicated that: (i) Manuela’s father suffered serious mental health problems owing to the anguish of not knowing what would happen to his daughter, as well as to the treatment by the authorities, the financial difficulties to be able to visit Manuela, and realizing that he had signed a complaint against his daughter; (ii) Manuela’s mother’s physical and mental integrity were seriously affected as a result of the search of her home and the threats made by the authorities, the injustice that her daughter suffered, the helplessness she felt knowing that her daughter was dying without being able to see her, and the mistreatment she suffered at the hands of the prison staff when visiting her daughter in prison; (iii) Manuela’s sons were significantly affected “because they lost their only parental reference,” as well as due to stigmatization in their community for being the sons of someone who “killed her baby.” The representatives also indicated that all this proved that the members of Manuela’s family unit “suffered adverse effects and profound anguish owing to the arbitrary deprivation of Manuela’s liberty.” They also argued that there had been unlawful interference in Manuela’s private and family life and, also, that her family did not have the financial resources to pay for travel and transportation expenses. On this basis, they also asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Articles 11(2), 17(1) and 19 of Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 303, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 251, both citing UN, Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General recommendation No. 19, Violence against women. 1992, para. 6. 418 419 Article 5 of the Convention. 420 Article 8(2) of the Convention. 421 Article 1(1) of the Convention. 73