investigated the violations committed within the prison that day to the detriment of all the victims, and that six years since the official close of the investigation the trial still has not been completed, the Commission finds that the potential complexity of the matter is not enough to justify the delay, and therefore the reasonable time period standard has clearly been violated. 86. Based on these considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Venezuela is responsible for the violations of the rights to fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the injured victims and the relatives of the deceased victims identified in this report. D. Right to personal integrity of the relatives of the deceased victims in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 87. The Commission and the Inter-American Court have found that the relatives of victims of certain human rights violations can themselves be considered victims. 152 The Court has found that their psychological and moral integrity can be affected as a result of the particular situation suffered by victims, as well as by subsequent actions or omissions of domestic authorities in response to such acts.153 88. In this case, the Commission has established that the Venezuelan State is internationally responsible for the deaths of the seven victims, and that the investigation of those deaths was not conducted with due diligence. Under such circumstances, the Court has found that: the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for 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, including the determination of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their corresponding responsibilities.154 89. The Commission finds that the loss of loved ones in circumstances described in this report, as well as the lack of truth and justice, caused pain and suffering to the detriment of Lorenza Josefina Pérez de Olivares, Elizabeth del Carmen Cañizales Palma, Elías José Aguirre Navas, Yngris Lorena Muñoz Valerio, José Luis Figueroa, Jenny Leomelia Reyes Guzmán, and Johamnata Martínez Coralis, in violation of their right to psychological and moral integrity established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1.1 of the Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90. Based on the considerations of fact and of law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 4.1 (life); 5.1 and 5.2 (humane treatment); 8.1 (fair trial); and 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF VENEZUELA, 1. Provide comprehensive reparations for the human rights violations declared in this report both for material and immaterial damage. The State must adopt the measures to provide economic compensation and satisfaction. IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12,488. Merits. Members of the Barrios Family (Venezuela). March 16, 2010. 91; IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights (2002), para. 227; I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 112; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 102. 153 I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 112; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006, para. 96. 154 I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Judgment of November 27, 2008, para. 102; Case of the “La Rochela Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 195; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Ecuador, judgment of August 12, 2008, para. 146. 152 19