F. Right to humane treatment of the victims’ family members (Article 5(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) 222. In numerous cases the Inter-American Court has considered that the family members of victims of human rights violations can also be victims.199 In particular, in cases that involve the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the victim’s family members is a direct consequence of that phenomenon, and that the forced disappearance itself causes severe suffering, which is compounded, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the state authorities to provide information about the whereabouts of the victim or to initiate an effective investigation to clarify what happened.200 Accordingly, the Court has considered that the continuous deprivation of the truth as to the whereabouts of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel and inhumane treatment for close family members.201 223. The State also has the obligation, when facing the facts of a forced disappearance, to ensure the right to humane treatment of the family members through effective investigations to determine the whereabouts of their loved one and to identify and punish the persons responsible. Moreover, the lack of effective remedies has been considered by the Court as a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims and their family members.202 In the five cases covered in this report, and as has been established in the section on facts proven, the family members set out to search for the victims without any response by the authorities. 224. The Commission observes that to date, the family members of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello do not know the fate or whereabouts of their loved ones and have not had an adequate and effective judicial response. The State did not provide the families of these victims an effective judicial remedy that would make it possible to establish the truth, punish the director perpetrators and masterminds, and obtain the corresponding reparation. 225. One should add, with respect to case 12,224, that Ms. Rosa Carcausto Paco stated that “she was a victim of harassment and was being followed presumably by members of intelligence services in the wake of what happened to her common-law husband Santiago Antezana Cueto, from 1988 to 1997,” adding that it had led her to travel to Bolivia three times, in 1988, 1994, and 1996, to safeguard her physical and psychological integrity.203 226. The Commission considers that given the nature of the facts of the case, the situation of impunity, and the necessary effects in the victims’ nuclear families, the State also violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the family members of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, Escobar, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, who are indicated in this report. 199 I/A Court HR, Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160. I/A Court HR, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 105. 200 201 I/A Court HR, Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 166. 202 I/A Court HR., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 113. 203 Annex 70. Communication from the petitioners, April 28, 2000.