Espinoza’s relatives313 fled to the United States, where they now live. In turn, six of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes family members moved to Benito Juárez.314 287. As can be seen, the victims’ next of kin have suffered serious damage as a result of the events that occurred beginning on December 30, 2009, because of ineffectiveness in the investigation of the facts and in the search for the victims, which led to a series of threats and incidents of harassment against them. All of this, in addition to affecting their physical, mental, and moral integrity, has had an impact on their social and labor relations and has altered their family dynamics.315 In addition, a large group of family members have been forced to move to other cities and have even sought asylum in another country, which led to separation of their families and to social and cultural uprooting. 288. The Commission underscores that many of the family members who have had to endure these circumstances are children, toward whom the State has a special protection obligation, which it failed to fulfill as of the moment their loved ones disappeared—in Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes case in the presence of her daughter and younger siblings—and later by its failure to respond to the threats received and the need for forced displacement. 289. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violating the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set out in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of all of the next of kin set out in paragraphs 59 to 61 of the present report. The Commission also concludes that the State is responsible for violating the right to private and family life established in Article 11 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jaime Alvarado Herrera and his family group. Likewise, in keeping with the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violating the right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 39 people subjected to forced displacement, as indicated in paragraph 195 to 197 of the present report. Lastly, the Commission concludes that the State failed to perform its duty of special protection toward the children making up part of the family groups of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, as pointed out in paragraph 195 and following of the present report. VI. CONCLUSIONS 290. The Commission concludes that the State of Mexico is responsible for the violation of the right to juridical personality, to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 22, and 25 in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the persons indicated throughout this report. Likewise, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violating Article I.a and I.b and Article IX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 291. In addition, the Commission concludes that it does not have enough elements to rule on the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women. 313 Her father, Alvarado Fabela; her mother, María de Jesús Espinoza Peinado; her daughters, N.S.A.E, M.P.A.E, and D.A.E; her sister, María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza; her brother-in-law, Rigoberto Ambriz Marrufo; and her nephews and nieces, R.A.A, I.A.A.A, J.E.A.A, and A.Y.A.A. 314 Her mother, Patricia Reyes Rueda; her daughter, A.M.U.A; her siblings, A.A.R and R.A.A.R; and her grandparents, Manuel Reyes Lira and María de Jesús Rueda Villanueva. 315 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 160.