58 and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their 339 corresponding responsibilities. 251. The Commission recalls that the Court has deemed the “absence of effective remedies to be an additional source of suffering and anguish for the alleged victims and their next of kin.”340 In the instant case, the State has not conducted a thorough investigation of the facts or effective judicial proceedings aimed at identifying and punishing those responsible for the massacres, the disappearances, and the other violations that occurred in connection with these events, as will be apparent in the analysis of the violation of articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 252. In short, it is obvious to the Commission that the anguish that the victims’ next of kin have suffered, the lack of effective protection and the profound suffering and radical change in their lives have violated their right to humane treatment. The Commission therefore concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity, and the rights to family, protected in Articles 5(1) and 17 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the duty to respect rights undertaken in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims in this case and who are listed in the single annex to this report, as well as the survivors Ciriaco Galiego López, Miguel Chen Tahuico, and Napoleón García Paz. 2.5.2. The right not to be subjected to forced labor (Article 6 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 253. On the matter of forced labor, the Court has written that: according to the ILO Convention (No. 29), the definition of forced or compulsory labour consists of two basic elements. First, the work or service is exacted “under the menace of a penalty.” Second, it is performed involuntarily. Furthermore, the Court finds that, to constitute a violation of Article 6(2) of the American Convention, it is necessary that the alleged violation can be attributed to State agents, either due to their direct participation or to their acquiescence to the 341 facts. […] 254. The established facts show that members of the National Army held Mrs. Juana García Depaz in the model village of Chichupac from late 1983 and forced her to cook for the soldiers. The Commission considers that the threat of a penalty was self-evident since, as Mrs. Juana García Depaz recounted, she was threatened multiple times and even beaten and raped. It is equally obvious that 339 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par.102; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, par.195; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par.146; and Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par.102. 340 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par.261. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par.145; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par.145; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par.94. 341 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par.160.