C. Right to personal integrity 96. On a number of occasions, pursuant to the cases heard, the case law of the Inter-American Court has referred to the obligation to investigate attacks on people’s personal integrity and on their lives, but also threats or acts of harassment. The Court has held that the “obligation to investigate” is derived not only from international obligations but “that it is also derived from domestic legislation that refers to the duty to proactively investigate certain illicit conduct.” 91 97. In the instant case, the Commission recalls that the alleged victims reported that they had been targets of threats and harassment subsequent to their dismissal as justices of the Supreme Court, and even ended up leaving the country. Both Mr. Gutiérrez Navas and Mrs. Cruz Sequeira lodged complaints about the threats they had received. In addition, in the specific case of Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, the National Human Rights Commission granted security measures for only a certain amount of time. The case file does not show that the State authorities took any steps to investigate or afford protection in response to the incidents that were reported. 92 98. The Commission considers that it has not been established that the State undertook any criminal or administrative investigations with respect to the acts of harassment and threats that were reported by the alleged victims and that were publicly known. Nor is the Commission aware that any protection measures were adopted for the alleged victims or their family members in the context of such risks. 99. Therefore, the Commission deems that the State is responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in connection with Articles 5 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100. The Commission concludes that the Honduran State is responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, the guarantee of judicial independence, political rights, and judicial protection established in Articles 5, 8(1), 8(2)(b), (c), and (d), 9, 23(1)(c), and 25(1) of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma. 101. Based on the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF HONDURAS 1. Reinstate the victims—should they so wish—to positions similar to the one they held in the Judicial Branch, with the same compensation, benefits, and rank that they would have today if they had not been dismissed. If, for well-justified reasons, reinstatement is not possible, they should be paid an alternative compensation. 2. Provide full pecuniary and nonpecuniary reparations for the rights violations declared in this report, including the payment of compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. Argentina, July 5, 2017, par. 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 192. 91 I/A Court H.R., Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 5, 2019, Series C No. 374, paras. 110 and 111. 92 Petitioners’ brief of November 20, 2018. 20