measures adopted to preserve the evidence with a view to future comparisons with potential culprits. The record also does not show that any tests were done on the bullet found at the scene of the crime to determine its caliber, for instance, and whether that caliber matched any kind of firearm used by the State's security forces According to information provided by the State, it was only in September 2017, eight years after the events occurred, that follow-up information about those two evidentiary exhibits was requested from the evidence warehouse. By the same token, there is no record of any steps taken to identify the State security agency were assigned to the area where the body of Vicky Hernández was found during the curfew. 96. In addition, the only witness statement taken by the DNIC in the case was that of the mother of Vicky Hernández, two years after the murder. The IACHR finds that the record of the preliminary inspection procedure, under the heading "Witnesses and Family Members," contains information on two of Vicky's friends who were never interviewed. Finally, in spite of the fact that the record of the removal of the corpse noted that at the time of the procedure there was “a large number of curious onlookers and journalists” present, nothing in the record suggests that statements were taken from any of the people present in order to identify potential witnesses. 97. Third, in relation to the issue of reasonable time, the Commission observes that nine years after the events the authorities have not yet identified those responsible or made any significant progress in terms of determining the circumstances in which the murder of Vicky Hernández occurred. The Commission finds that contrary to what the State has contended, this case cannot be termed complex since it involves a single victim and the record confirms the existence of witnesses, the presence of physical evidence, and the known context of a curfew coupled with a climate of violence against trans people, all of which are indicators that should have prompted lines of inquiry. In any event, the State has not furnished any concrete arguments to justify the overall delay, setbacks, and particular inactivity at various times in the investigation in light of the purported complexity. The commission considers it clear, rather, that the delay and lack of progress in the investigation are due to the State's failure to investigate with the diligence that was required of it in this case, not only because of the existence of evidence of violence based on prejudice, but also because of possible state involvement and the context in which it occurred. 98. In light of the preceding considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Honduras is responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial, equal protection and nondiscrimination, and judicial protection recognized at Articles 8(1), 24, and 25(1) of the American Convention taken in conjunction with the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) of that instrument, and at Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of the family members of Vicky Hernández individually identified in this report. C. Right to humane treatment of the next-of-kin [Article 5(1) of the American Convention] 99. 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. 168 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.169 100. In this case, the Commission considers it reasonable to conclude that the loss of a loved one, the gravity of the acts that occurred in light of the analysis contained in this report, and the absence of clarification and an adequate and timely judicial response have produced consequences that have extended beyond the immediate victim and impacted the members of her family identified in this report. Consequently, IACHR, Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488, Merits, Barrios Family, Venezuela, March 16, 2010, par. 91. IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights. par. 227; 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. 169 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. 168