32 that this is one of those cases in which, due to its characteristics, the determination of the same is a complex task, which would make other considerations by this Tribunal necessary. 111. Based on the aforementioned and taking into consideration the acknowledgment made by the State, it decides to only consider Mrs. Tita and Andrea and Mr. Rosendo, all of them with the surnames Radilla Martínez, as alleged victims. The Court regrets that, due to procedural reasons, this Tribunal cannot consider the other next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, whom it presumes suffered in equal conditions, as alleged victims. However, it points out that the non-determination of violations in their detriment by this international instance does not prevent or discard the possibility that the State, in good faith, adopt reparation measures in their favor (infra para. 328). 112. Finally, the Court warns that the representatives argued that, as a community leader, the forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla had a specific impact on “the community” where he lived. In this sense, they indicated that “based on interviews with key persons in the community we have determined the moral damage the disappearance of Rosendo Radilla, as well as prior (context) and subsequent (impunity) circumstances, have caused the community.” Based on this, they asked that the Tribunal declare a violation to the right to humane treatment, acknowledged in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, in detriment of said “community”. 113. In this regard, the Tribunal observes that, besides constituting general mentions on alleged affected parties, “the community” where Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco lived, or in any case, its members, were not included by the Inter-American Commission as alleged victims in its application or in the Report according to Article 50 of the Convention. Consequently, since they were not specifically identified at the correct procedural moment, the Tribunal cannot consider them alleged victims in the present case, reason for which it shall not issue a ruling regarding the alleged violations in their detriment. VIII REGARDING THE FORCED DISAPPAREANCE OF ROSENDO RADILLA-PACHECO (ARTICLES 776, 577, 478, AND 379 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1)80 OF THE SAME AND ARTICLES I, II, AND XI81 OF THE INTERAMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE) 76 Article 7(1) of the American Convention states that “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security.” 77 Article 5 of the American Convention states, in what is relevant, that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with regard for the inherent dignity of the human person. 78 Article 4(1) of the Convention states, in what is relevant, that “[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 79 Article 3 of the Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.” 80 Article 1(1) of the Convention states that “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.”