110 following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang, and Ronald Chang Apuy. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 5 AND 1(1) (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT AND OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) Pleadings of the representatives of the next of kin of the victim 219. In their autonomous brief with pleadings, requests, and evidence, the representatives asked the Court to find that the State has violated Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the direct next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang, who are: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, daughter; Yam Mack Choy, the deceased father; Zoila Chang Lau, the mother; Freddy Mack Chang, brother; Marco Mack Chang, brother; Helen Mack Chang, sister; and Ronald Chang Apuy, first cousin. In this regard, they stated that: a) the violation was due to the fact that the next of kin of the victim felt deep suffering and anguish because of the following situations: 1) the circumstances of the death of Myrna Mack Chang; 2) the harassment campaign directed against those who insisted on finding out the truth regarding the death of Myrna Mack Chang; and 3) inaction of the State to punish all those responsible; b) for more than “twelve” years, the next of kin of the victim and, especially, Helen Mack Chang, have made numerous efforts to attain justice in the case and, since then, have lived under the imminent threat of suffering aggression as personal punishment for their struggle against impunity. Insistence of the family on trying all those responsible–direct perpetrators and accessories- of the murder of Myrna Mack Chang has been counteracted by the efforts of certain Guatemalan sectors to ensure impunity through acts of intimidation and violence. The feeling of insecurity and anguish that stems from having to live with this harsh reality must be considered non-humane treatment; c) while the Commission did not expressly point to violation of Article 5 of the Convention in its application, that does not impede the Court from addressing this matter. The representatives of the next of kin of the victim have the autonomous power to allege violations of rights independently of the pleadings submitted by the Commission, inasmuch as the facts that are the object of the case brought before the Court are respected. The aim of the new Rules of Procedure of the Court is to enable autonomous defense of the interests of the victims or their next of kin, facilitating their active participation in the development of the proceeding. For this reason, forcing the representatives of the victims to restrict the content of their claim to the application submitted by the Commission would be contrary to the amendment. It is therefore consistent for the Court to recognize the right of the victim to autonomously requests a juridical solution of the case. If the Court did not explicitly recognize said right of the victim or the representatives of the victim, in any case it is competent to rule on the request based on the iura novit curia principle.