84 306. Article 5.1 of the American Convention establishes that: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” With respect to the next of kin of the victims of certain human rights violations, the Court has indicated that they can also be viewed as victims.403 In this regard, the Court has provided that their mental and moral integrity can be affected as a consequence of the specific situations that the victims underwent and the subsequent deeds or omissions by domestic authorities in the face of these events.404 307. Specifically, regarding cases where there was no complete or effective investigation, as in the present case, the Court has indicated that: (...) [T]he absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the determination of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their 405 corresponding responsibilities. 308. According to the above, the Commission deems that the loss of a loved one in a context as the one described in the present case, as well as the absence of a complete and effective investigation, which in turn leads to suffering and anguish for not knowing the truth, constitutes in itself an adverse impact on the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the alleged victims. 309. By virtue of the above, to the Commission it is evident that the anguish suffered by the next of kin of the victims in their search for justice as a result of the forced disappearance of their loved ones, the absence of effective protection, and the deep suffering and radical change in their lives has affected their personal integrity. As a result, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with the duty to ensure respect as set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of the case that are listed in the only annex of the instant report. VI. CONCLUSIONS 310. On the basis of arguments of fact and law set forth, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same international instrument; as well as articles I.a) and I.b) of the Inter-American 403 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. paragraph 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, paragraph 102. 404 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, paragraph 112; and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, paragraph 96. 405 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo and others v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 102; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, paragraph 195; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraph 146; and Case of García Prieto and others v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 102.