36 b) As regards Bernabé Baldeón-García’s next of kin i) the violation of their mental and moral integrity “is the direct result of what happened to [Mr.] Bernabé Baldeón-García, who was not only a father and a husband, but a figure of authority, respect and wisdom in his community;” ii) the body of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García was buried “immediately without giving notice to his immediate family, denying them the right to give him burial according to their rites;” iii) the events subject matter of the instant case caused them “suffering and a feeling of impotence toward State authorities, despair, displacement, and anguish at the indifference of the authorities who did not comply with their duty to investigate and punish those responsible for such events;” iv) “throughout the years, they have been seeking a rigorous and impartial investigation;” and v) their grief stems from the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the facts surrounding the death of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García. Argument of the State 108. With respect to Article 5 of the American Convention, the State acknowledged its international liability for the "maltreatment" meted out to Mr. Bernabé BaldeónGarcía. However, the State made no statement regarding the obligations derived from said conventional provision in respect of the alleged victim’s next of kin (supra paras. 20 and 54(b)). Considerations of the Court 109. Article 5 of the Convention sets forth: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. [...] 110. Before embarking on the analysis of the obligations derived from the conventional provisions transcribed hereinabove, the Court notices that the representatives alleged that the State failed to comply with the obligations set forth in Articles 2 (sic) and 3 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (supra para. 19). The Commission raised no arguments on this issue. In this regard, the Court has established that the representatives may allege violations different from those alleged by the Commission provided that those legal arguments are based on the facts set out in the application.68 The alleged victims are the holders of the rights enshrined in the Convention; therefore, depriving them from advancing their own legal arguments would be an undue restriction on their right to 68 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, paras. 57 and 58; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 183; and Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 88.