all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, as well as promoting respect for their inherent dignity. 146. In the present case, the petitioner alleges that the ten-year delay for the court to rule on state responsiblity in the damages suit brought against the Army General Staff, obstructed the way for obtaining prompt reparation to furnish him with adequate means to make it possible to provide his minor son with adequate, timely and early rehabilitation. The IACHR further notes that when the complaint was filed bringing suit in December 1990, Sebastian, who was born on June 6, 1974, was 16 years old, and by the time final judgment was rendered in the suit on November 23, 2000, Sebastian was 26 years old. It must also be mentioned that, based on established facts, the record shows the petitioner could not actually receive the court-ordered damages award until more than two years later, when Sebastian was 28 years old. The established facts in the instant case show how important it is, in instances of child brain injury, for the injured child to receive prompt and timely rehabilitation, inasamuch as early rehabilitation helps the injured child to achieve a result of greater functionality. 147. Furthermore, in keeping with the parameters of Article 19 of the American Convention, the IACHR finds that during the first two years of the proceedings, while the victim was a minor, the State had a higher degree of responsibility and a special duty to ensure the free and full exercise of his right to personal integrity, in accordance with obligations emanating from Inter-American and international standards. The Commission also finds that the State ought to have taken the necessary measures so that the proceedings moved forward at a faster pace, taking into account not only the best interests of the child, but also the adverse effect on Sebatian’s physical and psychological integrity stemming from the passage of time over the course of the proceedings, thus delaying reparation and thereby prompt, adequate and timely physical, psychological and psychiatric rehabilitation. 148. Moreover, it must be noted that the only intevention of the Office of Juvenile Assistance as evidenced in the court case file of these proceedings is the written brief dated October 29, 1996 indicating that because Sebastian had reached adult age, it was no longer the reponsibility of said entity to represent him.203 No record appears in the case file regarding any involvement whatsoever of said institution prior to that point in the court proceedings. The IACHR further finds that the delay in the court proceedings may have had a bearing on the failure of that institution to get involved on behalf of Sebastian, which placed him in a defenseless and vulnerable position. 149. Based on the foregoing reasons, the IACHR finds that the effects that the unwarranted delay in the suit had on Sebastian, who was in a situation of particular vulnerability, inasmuch as he was 14 years old at the time of the accident and had severe physical and mental disability, constitute a separate violation of his right to personal integrity (Article 5.1) and the rights of the child (Article 19), in connection with the general obligation to ensure the full exercise of the human rights (Article 1.1), set forth in the American Convention. 150. Lastly, the IACHR recalls that according to the established jurisprudence of the bodies of the Inter-American system, the next of kin of human rights victims can be considered victims as well.204 In the instant case, the Commission notes that the delay in the process 203 On said occasion as well, the Office of Juvenile Assistance accepted representation of Sebastian’s sister and brother because they were minors. Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v. National State for Damages,” page 55. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 204 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, para. 102; I/A Court H.R., Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 335; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 83, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 96.