62 100. The Court deems that the State breached Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, as the conditions in which his mortal remains were found authorize the inference that he suffered severe tortures at the hands of his captors. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that, on the night of July 11, 1992, before he was captured by the military, Juan Humberto Sánchez was in normal physical conditions, in view of which the State should reasonably explain what happened to him. At the time the instant Judgment is issued, the State has not yet provided a reasonable explanation of how and why the corpse of Juan Humberto Sánchez was in said conditions when it was found, and this therefore constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. 101. This Court has stated, before, that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.117 In the sub judice case, abridgment of the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of Juan Humberto Sánchez comes as a direct consequence: of his illegal and arbitrary detention on July 10 and 11, 1992, which took place at the home of his parents, with the latter present as well as some of the younger siblings; of the uncertainty of not knowing the whereabouts of Juan Humberto Sánchez for over a week; of the signs of extreme violence on the corpse when it was found; of the illegal and arbitrary detention and the threats and harassment suffered by the stepfather at the hands of agents of the State; of the illnesses suffered by the mother and the stepfather; of lack of investigation and punishment of those responsible for these facts. All of this causes suffering, anguish, insecurity, frustration, and a feeling of powerlessness of the next of kin visà-vis the State authorities.118 Therefore, the next of kin can be considered to have been the victims of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.119 102. In this specific case, the next of kin of the victim suffered additionally due to the treatment given to the moral remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez, which were found in an advanced state of decay with signs of great violence, wedged between two rocks in a river; and when they were found by the local authorities, they did not conduct the necessary inquiries for a serious investigation, such as, for example, taking photographs or performing an autopsy for lack of the respective economic means in that part of the country. Furthermore, due to the state of decay of said remains, the Justice of the Peace of Colomoncagua ordered their burial at the place where they were found, without the consent of the next of kin (supra 70.12). As the mother of the victim stated, “as they buried him [...] as if they had buried an animal, as if my son had not been a Christian.” Said treatment of the remains of the victim “which were sacred for his relatives, and specifically for [his mother], constituted for [them] a cruel and inhuman treatment.”120 1995, Series A, no. 336, para. 34; and Eur. Court H. R., Case of Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, paras. 108-111; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, paras. 152-153; and Villagrán Morales et al. Case, supra note 103, para. 170. 117 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 160; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, para. 105; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 175; and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations, (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 59. 118 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 160; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, para. 105; and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 128. 119 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 162; Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey, supra note 108, paras. 130-134. 120 Cf. “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 174.