VIII-2 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF MÁRCIA BARBOSA DE SOUZA260 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 152. The Commission considered that the right to psychological and moral integrity of the alleged victim’s next of kin was violated due to the following factors: i) the murder of the alleged victim; ii) the failure to investigate the other suspects; iii) the delay in opening the case against the then deputy; iv) the impunity in which the then deputy allegedly lived, and v) the duration of nearly ten years of the criminal proceedings. 153. The representatives agreed with the Commission that the State violated the right to personal integrity of Márcia Barbosa de Souza’s next of kin owing to the suffering caused by the impunity of the facts of the case. They emphasized the statements made by her parents, who stated: “I only believe in God’s justice, because I’ve never seen important people arrested for killing poor people” and “it’s the rich people against the poor people […].” Therefore, they alleged that the asymmetry of powers in this case would have aggravated the suffering of the alleged victim’s family. 154. The State argued that the criminal prosecution was conducted in accordance with due process and with the corresponding procedural guarantees, as established in the American Convention and the Constitution of Brazil. It further argued that all phases were characterized by respect for the principles of adversarial proceedings and broad defense. However, it indicated that, owing to the complexity of the judicial procedures established for crimes of homicide, the processing of the case took longer, but that this did not imply impunity for the accused. It considered that the conduct of the police and judicial authorities, from the time of the homicide of the alleged victim until the death of the accused, was entirely satisfactory, and that there were no undue delays or actions that denied justice. It alleged that there is no evidence that the State caused an unjustified delay in the criminal proceedings or that it was negligent in its duty to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the death of the alleged victim. It pointed out that the State offered a judicial response to the facts considered to violate the rights of the next of kin of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, and that the punishment of the perpetrator could not be carried out for reasons beyond the control of the State, namely the death of Mr. Pereira de Lima in February 2008. Finally, it stressed that the State must ensure equal protection of the law to all persons and that it could not have expedited the process if this implied violating the procedural guarantees of the parties. B. Considerations of the Court 155. The Court has repeatedly held that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may themselves be victims.261 This Court has considered that the right to psychological and moral integrity of the “next of kin” of victims and of other persons with close ties to the victims, may be declared violated due to the additional suffering they have endured as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones, and due to the subsequent actions or omissions by the State authorities in response to these facts,262 taking Article 5(1) of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 217. 262 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case 260 261 -45-