integrity, as provided in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, was violated” . 245. Furthermore, it argued that “the family did not receive counseling from the [Juvenile Defender’s Office] or the support of any other entity in charge of social services for children with disabilities” and, consequently, the family had to finds ways to “manage on their own” and had to help Sebastián with “his daily needs and the long rehabilitation process.” The Commission also pointed out that “during the processing [of the instant case], information was produced regarding the consequences suffered by the family and the unwarranted delay experienced by Sebastian’s family, who had to take charge of all [his] care, treatment and rehabilitation needs.” 246. For their part, the representatives argued that Danilo Furlan, Susana Fernández, Claudia Furlan, Sabina Furlan, Diego Furlan and Adrian Nicolás Furlan, as “immediate family members of a victim of human rights violations”, should be considered as “direct victims of the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity, embodied in Article 5 of the Convention". They alleged that “the excessive delay in the civil proceeding protracted the emotional distress of the father, the mother, the brother and sister of Sebastian, who had to live with the consequences of the lack of care and special state protection and the consequences for Sebastian’s health and social security.” They further argued that this situation “had a devastating effect on the family” given that “the difficulties in dealing with Sebastian’s new condition, without adequate State's assistance, critically affected “the relationships of different family members to the point of disintegration.” As an example, they mentioned that “the divorce of Danilo Furlan and Susana Fernández […] is just one manifestation of that critical process.” 247. The representatives also argued that the consequences of the accident “had a direct impact on all the family, [since] each of its members suddenly had to deal with new problems caused by this situation… [which] resulted in limitations and deficiencies in the care of Sebastián’s siblings, Claudio and Sabina and the breakup of their parents’ marriage.” They mentioned that “[t]he lack of response by the State to their requests for help and conclusive facts (suicide attempts; lack of criminal responsibility in a criminal case; suit for damages)” had the following consequences: i) the family’s roles were “reversed” because “the children took on duties that did not correspond to them; the mother began to work long hours to earn the income that the father could no longer generate because he had to devote himself exclusively to his son’s recovery”; and ii) “Danilo and Susana neglected their children Claudio and Sabina.” 248. The State argued that “the attached records do not show that the family” of Sebastián Furlan “had filed a claim regarding their personal integrity or had brought charges against the State on their own behalf together with Sebastián”. Therefore, it considered that the domestic remedies for the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention were not exhausted in relation to Sebastián Furlan’s family. Considerations of the Court 249. This Court has stated on other occasions that the relatives of victims of human 387 rights violations may, in turn, be victims. The Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of some family members has been violated when the suffering 387 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 83, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Penitentiary v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 335. 78