38 152. Accordingly, and since the Peruvian State has not yet amended its definition of the crime of forced disappearance established in Article 320 of its Criminal Code through the mechanisms provided by its domestic law, the IACHR holds that there is ongoing noncompliance with the obligation of adopting domestic legal effects, in the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention and Article III of the IACFDP. 6. Right to humane treatment of the victim’s next-of-kin (Articles 5.1 and 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights) 153. The right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, establishes that “every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” In connection with this, the Commission has acknowledged that: Among the fundamental principles upon which the American Convention is grounded is the recognition that the rights and freedoms protected thereunder are derived from the attributes of their human personality. From this principle flows the basic requirement underlying the Convention 186 as a whole, and Article 5 in particular, that individuals be treated with dignity and respect. 154. The precedents set by the Inter-American Court have established that members of 187 victims’ families may, in turn, be affected by violations of their right to mental and moral integrity. Thus, the Inter-American Court has found violations of the right to mental and moral integrity of victims’ next-ofkin based on the additional suffering they have undergone as a consequence of the specific 188 circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones and based on the subsequent 189 actions or omissions of state authorities regarding these facts. 155. The Commission notes that, in accordance with precedents established by the Court, “in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin is a direct result, precisely, of this phenomenon, which causes them severe anguish owing to the act itself, which is increased, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim or to open 190 an effective investigation to clarify what occurred.” 156. Consequently, and since following the forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio the State was also obliged to guarantee the right to humane treatment of his next-of-kin through an effective investigation, the absence of effective remedies constituted a source of additional suffering and anguish for the members of his family. 157. In addition to the assumed abridgment of the right to humane treatment of the next-of-kin of a forced disappearance victim, in the case at hand it has been shown that Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family pursued numerous formalities at the Army camp where he was initially detained on April 28, 1991, 186 IACHR, Report No.38/00, Case 11.743, Merits, Rudolph Baptiste, Grenada, April 13, 2000, para. 89, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99span/De%20Fondo/Grenada11743.htm. 187 I/A Court H. R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 101; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2009, Series C No. 211, para. 206; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 12, 2008, Series C No. 186, para. 163. 188 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 335; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 155, para. 96; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 22, 2006, Series C No. 153, para. 96. 189 I/A Court H. R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, Judgment of May 26, 2010, Series C No. 213, para. 195. 190 I/A Court H. R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of January 24, 1998, Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C No. 191, para. 87; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C No. 162, para. 123; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 105.