106. The representatives indicated that the lack of a prompt investigation by the State in order to discover the reasons for the abduction, identify those responsible, and prosecute them promptly so as to sentence and convict them, exposed his next of kin to a situation of anguish and despair, not only because of the disappearance of their relative, but also because they were obliged to incur financial expenses and travel to different places. This necessarily led them to change their way of living, which only added to the non-pecuniary damage and affected their social relations. The representatives concluded that the violation of the right to personal integrity of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza’s family is evident because of the consequences suffered as a result of the facts of the case and their search to obtain justice. 107. The State defined the situation of Mr. Palma’s next of kin as: A complex and painful situation, but not because of the lack of action in the investigation of the case, [which] was conducted in an extremely dangerous context in the coastal provinces of Ecuador, but because private agents (who had no connection whatsoever with the State) were able to exercise pressure and intimidate the family which, evidently, should have reported these acts. 108. In addition, the State indicated that, in order to analyze the alleged violation, the following aspects, among others, should be taken into account: (a) that the alleged violation of the physical or moral integrity was not increased by the stigmatization or denigration, because the courts, the police, and the civil authorities provided support to clarify the events; (b) a careful examination of the discontinuance procedure in the proceedings by the next of kin, in order to assess the pertinence of considering them direct victims; (c) that the timetable of the events related to Mr. Palma’s disappearance provided by the representatives does not imply the involvement of State agents; (d) that Mr. Palma’s remains were recovered, the exhumation was conducted, and the remains were returned to his next of kin; (e) that, as a result of a regional operation, it was possible to obtain the testimony of an individual (with no ties whatsoever to the State) who recounted what happened to Mr. Palma, and (f) that, while it is likely that some of the suffering experienced by Mr. Palma’s next of kin is similar to that of the relatives of victims in other cases submitted to the Court based on forced disappearance, their origin is very different as regards the international responsibility of the State in the instant case. Lastly, the State indicated that, in this case, there was no enforced disappearance and none of the characteristics elements of this crime occurred; rather, to the contrary, a serious and thus ongoing investigation was opened, based on the complaint that was filed and the applications for habeas corpus, criminal proceedings were undertaken, and those responsible were punished. In conclusion, Ecuador indicated that it has been proved that it did not violate Article 5 of the Convention, because it was not State agents who intervened in the unfortunate events of the instant case. Considerations of the Court 109. The Court finds that the State has not incurred responsibility in relation to the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity established in Article 5 of the American Convention, since it has concluded that a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection has not been established. X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 110. Therefore, 33