VII.III RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY298 AND PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY 299 TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE NEXT OF KIN A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 204. The Commission argued that, in this case, the next of kin of Claudina Velásquez had endured profound suffering and anguish as a result of the irregularities and delays in the investigation into her disappearance and subsequent death, as well as due to the failure to punish those responsible for these facts seven years after her body was found. It also argued that the continuous changes in the prosecutors in charge of the case had been a source of victimization, because it meant that the family had to repeat the facts of the case “countless times” with the attendant pain and emotional suffering. It also referred to the scant concern and sensitivity that State officials showed towards the family’s grief, particularly owing to “the arrival of officials from the Public Prosecution Service to fingerprint the corpse at the wake that the family was holding for the presumed victim,” with “the officials from the Public Prosecution Service even threatening prosecution if the parents refused to allows the procedure.” It also asserted that the Ombudsman had indicated that the family had been subjected to derogatory comments, in the sense that officials had mistaken the victim’s profile because of certain characteristics. The Ombudsman also found that on a number of occasion, Jorge Velásquez was denied access to the case file. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the State had violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. 205. The representatives agreed substantially with the Commission. In addition, they referred to the fact that the violation of the family’s integrity was constituted because the police agents twice refused to receive the reports that the presumed victim was missing and, therefore, failed to investigate her disappearance effectively. Likewise, the inopportune arrival to take fingerprints during Claudina Velásquez’s funeral victimized the family and showed a serious lack of respect for their mental and moral integrity. They also pointed out that the family had suffered owing to the disdain, indifference and negligence of the prosecutors and officials who have been in charge of the case and who obliged them to repeat the same story numerous times, with the resulting pain and emotional distress that this caused. All the foregoing added to the serious errors incurred by the different public officials who have taken part in the investigation process. In their final written arguments, they asserted that Jorge Velásquez had given impetus to the investigative actions aimed at discovering the truth of what happened to his daughter, and that this had caused the family “suffering, anguish, uncertainty, frustration and impotence in the face of the [omissions of the] State authorities.” 206. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article 11, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Claudina Velásquez Paiz and her family, owing to the treatment accorded to her mortal remains, because: (i) officials from the Public Prosecution Service had interrupted the family’s wake in the funeral home “in a deplorable way” to take fingerprints from the body; (ii) the corpse had already been tampered with before it was examined officially, as indicated in the report of the forensic physician, and (iii) the officials had Article 5(1) of the Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 299 Article 11 of the Convention establishes that: “1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” 298 71