connects this complexity with the delay in every instance142, which was not made in this case. In connection to the proceedings carried out by the interested party, the Commission observes that there is no record of any information indicating that the alleged victims obstructed the investigations. Regarding the behavior of the state authorities, the Commission abides to everything mentioned in this section. In addition, the IACHR observes that there were periods of time when the State was inactive without justification, especially in connection to filing, closing and reopening the investigations. 92. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Colombian State did not fulfill its duty to investigate, judge and punish, within a reasonable time and with due diligence, the forced disappearance analyzed in this report. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Colombian State is responsible of the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio and the members of his family, identified in this report. In addition, the Colombian State is responsible for the violation of Article I. b) of the IACFDP. D. Rights the personal integrity of the family members (Articles 5.1 and 1.1 of the Convention) 93. Regarding the family of the victims that suffered certain violations of human rights, the Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated that they can be considered, as well, as victims.143 In this regard, the Court has established that their psychical and moral integrity could be affected as a result of the particular situations that the victims endured, as well as the subsequent proceedings or omissions of the internal authorities before the facts144. 94. In this case, the Commission established that Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio was forced to disappear in unclear circumstances which were not duly investigated. These circumstances constitute an independent source of suffering and impotence to his family, which to this date have no certainty about the cause and circumstances of his whereabouts. In these type of circumstances, the Court has indicated that: […] the absence of a complete and effective investigation over the facts constitutes an additional source of suffering and distress for the victims and their families, who have the right to discover the truth about the events. This right to the truth requires the procedural determination of the most complex historical truth possible, which includes the judicial determination of the patterns of joint performance of action and of all the persons that took part in such violations and their respective responsibilities.145. 95. The Commission considers that the disappearance of a loved one, the uncertainty about his fate or whereabouts, as well as the absence of truth and justice, caused suffering and distress to Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio’s family, in violation of their right to psychical and moral integrity, established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1.1 of the same instrument. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96. The Commission concludes that the Colombian State is responsible for the violation of the rights to the recognition as a person before the law, life, personal integrity, personal freedom, judicial IACHR. Report No. 34/14. Case 12.492. Merits. Carlos Escaleras Mejía and family, para. 172. IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488. Merits. Barrios Family Members. Venezuela. March 16, 2010. 91. IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights. Para. 227; I/A Court of H.R. Case Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz Vs. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 112; and Case Bueno Alves Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164. para. 102. 144 I/A Court of H.R. Case Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz Vs. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 112; and Case Vargas Areco Vs. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. para. 96. 145 I/A Court of H.R. Case Valle Jaramillo and others Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 102; Case of La Rochela’s Massacre Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 195; and Case Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 146. 142 143 21