80 provides psychological care and the petitioners could have used this if they had considered that some type of treatment was necessary to protect their mental and moral integrity; however, there is no record that they requested this support at any time.” 231. Regarding the treatment accorded to María Isabel and her mother throughout the investigation process, the State argued that “State officials had never treated Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval without humanity and respect.” During the public hearing before the Court, the State affirmed that “there is no evidence to prove acts of public disparagement, persecution or discrimination towards [the] next of kin [of María Isabel].” 232. Lastly, with regard to the threats and harassment of the members of María Isabel’s family, the State indicated that it “had abided by the order to provide special protection to the life and integrity of the next of kin of [María Isabel] by means of the precautionary measures [of the Inter-American Commission].” B. Considerations of the Court 233. In numerous cases, the Court has considered that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.334 In this regard, the Court has understood that the right to mental and moral integrity of some of the family members of victims has been violated owing to the additional suffering that they have endured as a result of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones, and owing to the subsequent acts and omission of the State authorities in relation to the events. 335 234. In the case sub judice, the Court considers it appropriate to indicate that it has established the international responsibility of the State for lack of prevention in relation to the deprivation of life and personal integrity, as well as for the lack of judicial guarantees and judicial protection in relation to the lack of due diligence in the investigations. In particular, it has been proved that the State was aware of the danger to the child following the report and failed to adopt measures to prevent this and to avoid its implementation; moreover, the State authorities did not take prompt and diligent measures to investigate the murder of María Isabel Veliz Franco within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Court will examine the arguments concerning the effects on the personal integrity of the members of María Isabel’s family caused by the lack of diligence in preventing the incident and by the biased investigations, as well as by the harassment and the threats received. 235. In the statement made by Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval during the public hearing before this Court, she stated that: I came in contact with the callousness of those who work in the system of justice – of injustice – of Guatemala […]; they treated me badly, they treated my daughter badly […]; there were many attacks, persecution against me from the very start, against my two sons […]; I have suffered so much […]; at the start I did not want to live any longer, and if it were not for the fact that I have two sons, I would have no interest in living […]; I am ill because of this, because there is no justice in Guatemala. 236. Meanwhile, in his affidavit, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco stated that: In the beginning, my mother’s fight worried us […] because it was dangerous […]. There were family problems because they told [my mother] that she should leave it […]. My life changed forever after [María Isabel’s murder]; it affected me emotionally, psychologically and financially. The fact that my sister’s murder has not been clarified to date leads to feelings of impotence and frustration because we cannot obtain justice. It affected my nerves; my hands and legs tremble and I have a tic in my eye; I am a different person; my temperament changed, […] I consider myself to be violent; […] I frequently have problems breathing and health problems. My mother is a walking pharmacy; this has 334 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members, supra, para. 228. 335 Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra, para. 143.