103 right to humane treatment to the detriment of the 19 persons who were executed in the massacres of La Granja and El Aro, who are listed in Appendix I of this judgment. b) Concerning the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment of the next of kin of the victims executed in La Granja and El Aro 258. The next of kin of the victims executed in La Granja and El Aro suffered an intense psychological impact and have endured profound distress and grief as a direct result of the execution of their next of kin, and the circumstances of the massacres. These circumstances include witnessing the execution of their next of kin by heavily-armed men, hearing the cries for help while their family members were subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment, and the fear resulting from the extreme violence with which they were executed. The Court considers that all this has affected the social tissue of the next of kin of those executed in La Granja and El Aro. In addition, the accusation by the paramilitary group that the alleged victims and the population in general were collaborating with the guerrilla increased the villagers’ level of defenselessness and anguish. 259. As indicated above, when it is sufficiently real and imminent, the mere threat of a conduct prohibited by Article 5 of the American Convention can violate this article (supra para. 255).223 260. Thus, the Court finds it particularly serious that it was the next of kin themselves, without the assistance of the corresponding authorities, who had to gather up the bodies of their loved ones in order to bury them, without being able to give them a burial in accordance with their traditions, values and beliefs. In addition, the paramilitary group perpetrated these acts against the population with absolute liberty, with the acquiescence or tolerance of the authorities. 261. Moreover, in this case, there has not been a complete and effective investigation into the facts, as examined in the section corresponding to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention (infra paras. 283 and ff.). In other cases, the Court has considered this absence of effective remedies to be an additional source of suffering and anguish for the alleged victims and their next of kin.224 262. Over and above the foregoing, in a case such as the Ituango Massacres, the Court considers that no evidence is needed to prove the severe effects on the mental integrity of the next of kin of victims who have been executed.225 263. Based on the above, the Court finds there is sufficient evidence in this case to conclude that Colombia is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims executed in the La Granja and El Aro massacres. 223 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 119; Case of Tibi, supra note 176, para. 147; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 222, para. 149. Likewise, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Campbell and Cosans, supra note 222, p. 12, § 26. 224 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 158; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 145; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 94. 225 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 146.