149. Specifically, regarding the cases where there was a failure to conduct a complete and effective investigation, as in the present case, the Court has indicated that: (...) the absence of a complete and effective investigation of the events constitutes a source of additional suffering and distress for the victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what occurred. This right to the truth requires procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, which includes the judicial determination of the patterns of joint action and all the persons that in various ways participated in said violations and their corresponding responsibilities. 180 150. According to the above, the Commission considers that the loss of a loved one in a context as the one described in the present case, as well as the failure to conduct a complete and effective investigation, which in turn leads to suffering and distress for not knowing the truth, already constitutes, in itself, a violation of the mental and moral integrity of Mr. Pacheco León's next of kin. 151. Furthermore, the IACHR takes note of the various threats and events that would jeopardize the integrity of José Pacheco, the brother of Ángel Pacheco, and other members of his family. Although there is no detailed information about the contents and origin of these threats, the Commission observes that at least some of them can be considered to have been connected to the death of Ángel Pacheco León, taking into account that his brother José Pacheco León–who received various threats–subsequently held the public office of congressperson in the National Congress. The IACHR considers that this situation of insecurity, which has continued up to the present date according to what has been stated by José and Marleny Pacheco at the public hearing held in October 2014 with this body, has exerted an impact on the nuclear family. 152. The Commission takes note that these threats had been reported to judicial bodies. Nevertheless, the petitioners pointed out that, despite many requests filed with various public authorities, the State had not adopted any protection measures for the benefit of José Pacheco and his family. The IACHR observes that the State did not challenge these allegations. 153. By virtue of the above, the Commission considers that the loss of a loved one, the denial of justice, and the absence of effective protection to address the reports of threats have affected the personal integrity of the family of Mr. Pacheco León. As a consequence, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity as enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of the next of kin of Ángel Pacheco: i) his mother Andrea Pacheco; ii) his spouse Blanca Rosa Herrera; iii) his brothers and sisters Otilia, Concepción, José, Blanca, María, Francisco, Norma, Marleny, Jamileth, Jaqueline, and Jorge, who all bear the Pacheco surname; iv) his sons and daughters Jimy Pacheco, Miguel Ángel Pacheco; Cinthia Pacheco Devicente, Miguel Pacheco Devicente, Tania Pacheco López, Juan Pacheco Euceda, and Bianca Pacheco Herrera. V. CONCLUSIONS 154. On the basis of considerations of fact and law described above, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Honduras is responsible for the violation of: i) the rights to life and to political rights, as established in Articles 4 and 23 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same international instrument, to the detriment of Ángel Pacheco León; and 180 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 102; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 195; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 146; and Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 102.