213. In relation to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission already established in this report the breach of the duty of due diligence in the proceedings that were instituted. The Commission refers to the recapitulation of the omissions and inactivity described supra. 214. As for the fourth element, the Court has indicated that to determine the reasonableness of the time one must consider the impact of the duration of the proceeding on the legal situation of the person involved in it as well as on the interests at stake. 363 The Commission considers that in cases of alleged disappearance the passage of time has a particularly important impact on the victim’s situation, for whether the risk to his or her life and integrity materializes may depend on a prompt and efficient state response. In addition, the Court has held that in cases of persons with disabilities it is essential to take the relevant measures, such as, for example, by the authorities in charge assigning priority to addressing and resolving the situation, with the aim of avoiding delays in the conduct of the proceedings so as to guarantee a prompt resolution and their implementation. 364 215. In view of what has been noted, the Commission considers that the almost 16 years that have elapsed from the filing of the complaint to date without the State having clarified the facts, determined the applicable sanctions, or identified the fate or whereabouts of Luis Eduardo Guachalá, is an excessive time that has not been adequately justified. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the State breached the guarantee of reasonable time in violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Luis Eduardo Guachalá Chimbó and his family members. D. Right to humane treatment of the family members (Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument) 216. Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” With respect to the family members of victims of certain human rights violations, the Court has indicated that they may be considered, in turn, as victims. 365 The Court has ruled that they may be impaired in their mental and moral integrity as a result of the particular situations the victims suffered, and the subsequent acts or omissions on the part of the domestic authorities in dealing with these facts. 366 217. The Commission considers it sufficiently shown that in the instant case Mr. Guachalá’s mother and his immediate family suffered profoundly due to the disappearance of their loved one, which has been further aggravated by the failure to clarify the facts and the lack of any justice with respect to what happened. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1) to the detriment of the family members of Mr. Guachalá Chimbó who are identified in this merits report. VI. CONCLUSIONS 218. Based on the considerations of fact and law set forth above, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violating the rights to the recognition of juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, equality and non-discrimination, and health, and to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 7(1), 7(3), 8(1), 13(1), 24, 25(1) and 26 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 115. 364 I/A Court HR. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 196. 365 I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164. para. 102. 366 I/A Court HR. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. para. 96. 363 40