67. The bodies of the Inter-American system have repeatedly held that the relatives of the victims of certain serious human rights violations may, in turn, become victims of violations of their own personal integrity. 153 Specifically regarding the suffering endured by the family members of victims of forced disappearance, the Court has established that “the violation of those relatives’ mental and moral integrity is a direct consequence of the forced disappearance. The circumstances of such disappearances generate suffering and anguish, in addition to a sense of insecurity, frustration and impotence in the face of the public authorities’ failure to investigate.”154 68. Similarly, the Court has determined on many occasions that “the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin” must be considered “violated, due to the additional suffering and pain that they have endured because of the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities regarding the facts, and due to the lack of effective remedies.” 155 In fact, “the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible.”156 69. In the instant case, the Commission finds that even though it has not been classified as forced disappearance in the instant report, the mere fact that Antonio González Méndez remains missing to date, has caused deep feelings of grief, anguish and uncertainty, which have been growing deeper because of the failure to effectively and diligently investigate. Based on the foregoing, as for the grief and anguish Antonio González Méndez’s next of kin have endured and still endure, the Commission finds that they are, in turn, victims of the violation of their right to personal integrity. 70. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of disappeared person Antonio González Méndez, namely, his wife Sonia López Juarez and their children Ana González López, Magdalena González López, Gerardo González López and Elma Talía González López. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71. The Commission concludes that the State of Mexico is responsible for violation of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial and judicial protection. All of the foregoing, pursuant to Articles 5.1, 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. Likewise the State breached the obligations set forth in Article I b) of the ICFDP. 72. Based on the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RECOMMENDS THE STATE OF MEXICO, 1. To provide adequate reparation for all the human rights violations recognized in the instant report, of both a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature, and implement a program of rehabilitation, including adequate psychological and psycho-social care for the disappeared victim’s next of kin. The measures of satisfaction and rehabilitation will be determined with the full consensus of the victims. 2. To investigate the fate or whereabouts of Antonio González Méndez and, if applicable, take the necessary measures to identify and hand over his remains to his family. IA Court of HR. Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, (“Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment”), par. 206. 154 IA Court of HR. Blake Judgment, par. 114. 155 IA Court of HR. Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 206. 156 IA Court of HR. Valle Jaramillo Judgment, par. 102. See also: IA Court of HR. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 261; Case of the “Massacre of Mapiripán" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 145. 153 22