continued to refer to the corpse as “XX” following its identification. These facts, together with the numerous other alleged errors in the autopsy revealed a complete lack of respect for the honor and dignity of Claudina Velásquez and her family members. 207. The State asserted that the right to personal integrity is recognized in its domestic laws. It indicated that the criminal investigation was conducted diligently and in keeping with its resources and that the suffering caused by the facts was “a consequence of their occurrence and was not caused by the State.” It advised that it possessed centers that could provide psychological care to the petitioners. However, “there is no record that, at any time, they have requested this support or have been treated”; accordingly, “the State could not even prevent the mental or moral integrity of these people being affected.” It rejected the argument that its officials had treated the family with disdain and indifference. On this basis, the State considered that it was not responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the next of kin of Claudina Velásquez. 208. In addition, Guatemala argued, with regard to protection of honor and recognition of dignity, that under no circumstances had Article 11 of the American Convention been violated. It affirmed that fingerprinting was a necessary procedure in the investigation and that, even though it was carried out during the presumed victim’s funeral, it was not done in public, and the next of kin had authorized the State officials to conduct this procedure. Regarding the identification of the corpse as ”XX” and the alleged errors committed during the investigation, it underlined that they had been rectified and the person responsible sanctioned, and that such errors represented a small percentage of all the procedures that had been conducted during the investigation. B. Considerations of the Court 209. The Court has indicated on other occasions that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may also be victims. 300 The Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of some family members has been violated owing to the suffering they have endured as a result of the acts or omissions of the State authorities, 301 taking into account, among other matters, the actions taken to obtain justice and the existence of close family ties. 302 It has also declared the violation of this right based on the suffering resulting from the acts perpetrated against their loved ones.303 210. The Court will now analyze whether the presumed violations of personal integrity alleged by the Commission and the representatives have been proved. Subsequently, it will analyze whether the violation of the protection of honor and dignity alleged by the representatives has been constituted. 211. Regarding the presumed violation of the personal integrity of the family members, during public hearing, Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán stated how “horrifying” he found it to see the agents of the Public Prosecution Service take the fingerprints of Claudina Isabel Velásquez while they were holding the wake for her. He indicated that the horror of this event “cannot be described.” In this regard, Mr. Velásquez Durán stated: Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 211. 301 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 183, para. 46, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 211. 302 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 163, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 211. 303 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 128, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 211. 300 72