64 death and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment suffered by Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes, the State is liable for the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment enshrined in Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (Right to Humane Treatment and Obligation to Respect Rights) 151. In their closing arguments, the representatives alleged that the next of kin of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes are alleged victims of Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article (1)1 thereof, on the grounds of the facts set forth in the complaint regarding the death of Mr. Ximenes-Lopes, and which were accepted by the State in its acknowledgement of liability. Therefore, they consider that the State should duly redress the next of kin of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes for such violation. 152. Neither the Commission nor the State have filed any arguments on the above mentioned violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to the next of kin of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes. Considerations of the Court: 153. Article 1(1) of the American Convention provides that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 154. Article 5 of the American Convention provides that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. […] 155. As to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, which was stated only in the closing arguments filed by the representatives but not included in the brief containing motions and pleadings, the Court considers such arguments to 126 be time-barred; notwithstanding, pursuant to the principle of iuria novit curia the Court is not hindered from examining it. 156. The Court has repeatedly127 pointed out that the next of kin of the victims of violations of human rights may be, in turn, victims themselves. The Court considers 126 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No 130, para. 204; Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No 97, para. 58; and Case of Hilaire Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No 94, para. 107. 127 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 128; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 121, para. 119; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 154.