37 Maldonado Silvestre, nor of Florencia, Andrés, Martalia, Atilana and Rolando, all of whom bear the family name of Hernández Maldonado. 127. With respect to the deaths of Santiago Maquín Quip and Rosendo Morales Ortíz, in view of the foregoing (supra para. 125) State responsibility cannot be presumed for harm to the personal integrity of their next of kin. There is neither evidence nor arguments that show any type of harm caused to their next of kin because of their injuries. Therefore, it is not proper, in relation to the injuries suffered by those two persons, to declare an infringement to the right to personal integrity to the detriment of Manuela Pop Choc, Francisco Quip Choc, Petrona Quip Pop, Margarita Quip Pop, Martín Maquín Quip Pop, Dominga Maquín Pop, Santiago Quip Pop and José Morales Ortíz. 128. There remain the arguments that connect the right to personal integrity of the next of kin of the deceased and injured persons to the juridical proceedings. Those proceedings made it possible to determine what occurred and to establish responsibilities and no elements exist that would permit the Court to conclude that the fact, in and of itself, that some persons are fugitives from justice might have caused harm to personal integrity. With regard to the alleged fear because of the release of the soldiers (supra footnote 158), the Court considers that responsibility cannot be attributed to the State for that situation and it refers to what was concluded with respect to the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (supra paras. 86 and 87), also recalling what was concluded with respect to provisional measures (supra para. 10 and footnote 7). 129. The Court, thus, declares that Guatemala violated the right to personal integrity of the direct family members of the deceased victims of the massacre that occurred on October 5, 1955, infringing to their detriment Article 5(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. The names of the victims of this violation are listed in Annex B(5) of this judgment, of which it forms part. VII.4 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY194 A. Arguments of the parties 130. The Commission did not allege a violation of the right to private property. 131. The representative maintained that the right to private property was violated to the detriment of all persons indicated as victims, due to the entry of the Army without a judicial order. 132. The State claimed that there was no act of appropriation or usury regarding the goods of the members of the Community. It maintained that it was not responsible for violating Article 21 of the Convention. Article 21 of the Convention reads: “1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interests of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. 3. Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.” 194