judicial case file does not reveal any measure taken in this regard, even in the expansion of the autopsy report (of May 25, 2006) only the injuries caused by the firearm were analyzed, without any mention of the other types of injuries present on the body of Eduardo Landaeta. 274. Consequently, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the right to humane treatment, by a serious investigation, ex officio, and did not provide an effective judicial remedy to the members of Eduardo Landaeta’s family. B.3.5 Conclusion with regard to Eduardo Landaeta 275. The Court concludes with regard to the investigations and the criminal proceedings instituted with regard to the death of Eduardo Landaeta, that the State did not conduct a diligent investigation owing to the flaws during the collection of evidence, which involved the implementation of important procedures more than eight years after the events had occurred. The Court also concludes that the State did not follow joint lines of investigation in relation to the death of Igmar Landaeta, despite the indication of a connection between the two deaths. Furthermore, the Court considers that there were serious irregularities and procedural delays in the criminal proceedings that were underlined by the domestic authorities themselves, so that they were not conducted within a reasonable time, in order to clarify the events and punish those responsible. Lastly the Court concludes that the State did not conduct any type of inquiry into the unlawful and arbitrary detention of Eduardo Landaeta or into the indications of torture during his detention. Consequently, the Court finds that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of Eduardo Landaeta’s family (infra para. 294). VII-4 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 276. The Commission alleged that the State had violated the right to mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the members of the Landaeta Mejías brothers’ family, owing to the suffering and anguish caused by the ineffective actions and the omissions of the domestic authorities in response to the extrajudicial execution of their loved ones. The Commission asserted that the manner in which the events occurred, as well as the impunity surrounding the case, had had both mental and moral effects on the next of kin owing to the profound suffering and radical change in their lives. Despite the efforts to obtain justice and to clarify the events, the offenses remain unpunished; a situation that has been a constant source of frustration, sadness and helplessness. In order to establish the violation of the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin, the Commission considered the profound suffering due to the threats and subsequent extrajudicial execution of Igmar and Eduardo Landaeta Mejías, only a month and a half apart, added to the anguish they must have felt by anticipating the fate of Eduardo, once he had been detained and was being kept incommunicado, taking into account the previous threats and the death of his brother. 277. The representatives agreed that the State had violated the right recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention owing to the “mental and moral” effects on the family members due to the unlawful detention of Eduardo and the death of both Eduardo and his brother Igmar, both surnamed Landaeta Mejías. The representatives mentioned the following factors that caused “suffering, anguish, insecurity, frustration and helplessness” to their next of kin: the failure of the public authorities to conduct a thorough and diligent investigation; the remedies that were ineffective to respond to 78