137. Furthermore, based on available information from the petitioners and not contested by the state, the IACHR notes that the following relatives of Mr. Garcia by have suffered "profound moral pain”: Mrs. María Luisa Acosta; her children, María Álvaro Arístides Vergara Acosta; Mr. García Valle’s mother, Mrs. Leonor del Carmen Valle de García, and his father, Mr. Rodolfo García Solari. In particular, the petitioners say that the loss of Francisco García Valle has led to poor academic performance in his children caused by an inability to concentrate and despondency; a serious decline in the health of his parents; and generalized depression in María Luisa Acosta.233 138. The Commission also notes that as a result of Mr. García Valle's murder, fearing for their lives, María Luisa Acosta and her children left the city where they were living and moved to the city of Chinandega.234 The change of residence—according to the petitioners and not challenged by the State—also demanded a hefty financial investment and the closure of family businesses that were the mainstay of the family's financial income. 139. In light of the foregoing, especially the anxiety that the relatives of Mr. Garcia Valle have endured in their search for justice for his murder, as well as the profound suffering and radical changes in their lives brought about by all of the above-described circumstances, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right of María Luisa Acosta and the aforementioned family members to respect for their mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. V. CONCLUSIONS 140. Based on the determinations as to fact and law contained in this report, the Commission concludes that the State of Nicaragua is responsible for violation of the rights to a fair trial, judicial protection, and respect for one's mental and moral integrity envisaged in Articles 8(1), 25, and 5(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Luisa Acosta, Ana María Vergara Acosta, Álvaro Arístides Vergara Acosta, Leonor del Carmen Valle de García, and Rodolfo García Solari. The IACHR further concludes that the State violated María Luisa Acosta's rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection established in Articles 5, 8(1), 8(2), and 25 the American Convention, in connection with the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof. 233Observations 234 In of the petitioners on merits, September 19, 2011. the petition, the petitioners say, in particular, that “María Luisa Acosta had to change her address and go and live at her father's house in Chinandega. As a result, her immediate surroundings changed. She was forced to leave behind her friends, family and work in order to look for somewhere safer.” Initial petition of June 20, 2007. The assistant prosecutor also expressed her opinion on this point. Appendix 57. Writ of the Assistant Prosecutor, April 24, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 132. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007.