authorities, deficiencies to conduct the investigation and repeated delays in the judicial process reflect a lack of priority on cases of serious violations of human rights of these communities at the time. 158. In view if the above, the IACHR considerers that the framework within which occurred the serious events described and analyzed in this report, constituted an expression of the racial discrimination practiced against the Maya people during the armed conflict in Guatemala. Therefore, the IACHR considers that the State violated Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation with Article and 1(1) of said instrument. 5. Right to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) of the next of kin 159. Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides, “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected." The Inter-American Court has indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, be considered victims.228 In that regard, the Court has ruled that their right to mental and moral integrity [may be] violated based on 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.229 160. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that the loss of a loved one in circumstances such as those described in this case, as well as the delay in the proceedings in the case constituted harm to the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin. Added to that is the fact that the next of kin of the victims, as members of the community on the Xamán estate, witnessed the massacre and the deaths and injuries of the victims. The Commission also underscores that, according to the petitioners, the victims' next of kin have not received adequate medical or psychological care in the context of this situation, in spite of the fact that the State acknowledged its institutional responsibility at the outset. 161. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in connection with duty to observe rights set out in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims in this case who are mentioned in the sole annex to this report. 6. Considerations on the duty to provide comprehensive reparations for human rights violations 162. Before presenting its recommendations, bearing in mind the position of the State that the events described in this case were addressed by the convictions handed down by the domestic courts, the Commission considers it pertinent, in response to that argument, to make a number of observations in this particular case regarding the State's duty to provide reparation. 163. “It is a principle of international law that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation.”230 The Court has recognized that duty as 228 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. 229 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 Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 96. 230 25. I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, par. 35