perspective and that the criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings were marred by stereotypes regarding the role and social behavior of women, a situation that entailed a violation of the principle of equality and nondiscrimination in access to justice. 181. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1, as well as the right established in Article 24, of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument and Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém de Pará, to the detriment of Paola's next of kin. C. Right to humane treatment of the family members of Paola del Rosario Guzmán Albarracín (Article 5.1 of the American Convention) 182. The Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, be considered victims. 202 In that regard, the Court has ruled that their right to mental and moral integrity may be impaired as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts.203 183. The Commission already considered it established that the State is responsible for failure to fulfill its duty to respect and guarantee human rights because of the sexual violence and subsequent death of which Paola was a victim at the hands of the Vice Principal of the school Paola's death constitutes in itself a cause of suffering for her family members, as was the fact that Mrs. Petita was shown the cut open body of her daughter while the autopsy was being performed. This suffering was exacerbated by the lack of due diligence in the judicial proceedings undertaken in respect of the facts and by impunity surrounding the case, both of which have been established. 184. The above is confirmed by the testimony given by Mrs. Petita during the hearing on October 19, 2015 and by the expert opinion of Dr. Ximena Cortés, referred to in the present report 185. Based on the above, the Commission considers that the loss of their loved one and the absence of justice have cause suffering and anguish to Paola's parents and her sister, in violation of the right to mental and moral integrity, established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. V. CONCLUSIONS 186. Based on the determinations of fact and law, the Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violation of the rights established in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 11, 19, 24, and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee human rights set forth in Article 1.1 of that same instrument, and for violation of Article 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador, to the detriment of Paola del Rosario Guzmán Albarracín. The Commission further concludes that the State is responsible for violating Articles 5, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Paola's next of kin. The Commission also concludes that the State is responsible for violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 187. In light of the foregoing conclusions, I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 112; and Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, par: 102. See also: IACHR. Report No. 58/12. Case 12.606. Merits. Brothers Landaeta Mejías Venezuela. March 21, 2012, par. 256. 203 I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 112; and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 96. 202