them according to the standards established by the American Convention.221 In this case, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to an effective judicial remedy because it failed to rule on the merits of the issue raised by the 13 presumed victims and because it did not verify whether the measure taken by the President was adequate to respond to the action required. In addition, the Court considers that the Constitutional Court failed to comply with its duty to provide the reasons for its ruling. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral, Luis Armando Linares Ruano, Facundo Gómez Reyes, Marta Alicia Maldonado Paz, Miguel Lucas Vaíl, Ingrid Barillas Martínez, Jorge Armando Tavares Barreno, Melvin Yovani Ajtun Escobar, Mardo Luis Hernández and Hernández, Alberto Quiché Cuxeva, Teresa Magdalena Ramírez Castro, Rita Dubón Orozco and Dora Marina Martínez Sofoifa. VIII-3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE VICTIMS (ARTICLES 5 AND 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 188. The Commission indicated that the State had violated the right to mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin and/or closest circle of the victims in this case, owing to the additional suffering they underwent as a result of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones, and based on the acts and omissions of the State authorities in relation to these facts. 189. The representatives added that the next of kin and those close to the victims experienced profound suffering on observing that, owing to the State’s failure to provide comprehensive care to the patients living with HIV, the latter’s health deteriorated and some of them eventually died. They also indicated that, among other effects, both the next of kin and those close to the victims had experienced different types of discrimination, and changes to their life projects, their family ties, and their financial situation. In addition, the representatives emphasized that, in view of the stigma that has traditionally accompanied people living with HIV, the close circle who support people suffering from this disease goes beyond the members of the victims’ biological family. They therefore concluded that the State of Guatemala was responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin and/or the circle of those closest to the victims in this case. 190. The State did not contest the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives, because it only referred to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention in relation to the effects on the victims in the case, not on the next of kin. B. Considerations of the Court 191. The Court has considered that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.222 The Court has considered that the right to mental and moral Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 184. 221 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 351. 222 65