101 Peruvian Ombudsman, and the National Penitentiary Institute, and had received statements from at least 58 individuals, among other measures aimed at clarifying the facts that took place between April 17 and June 24, 1993, in the DIVISE and the DINCOTE, and the acts of torture that occurred on August 5, 1999, in the Yanamayo Prison (supra paras. 84 to 100). The Court considers that, since there is an ongoing investigation in which it is still possible to gather evidence and to determine other responsibilities, at this time it has not found deficiencies related to these actions that constitute further non-compliance with the obligation to investigate. Also, regarding the alleged examination of integrity presumably performed on Gladys Espinoza in 2013, the representatives did not provide information regarding the circumstances in which this was carried out that would allow its argument to be assessed. Therefore, the Court does not find a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to the investigation opened in 2012. VIII.5. RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS A) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 291. The Commission argued that, in the case sub judice, it has been proved that when she found out about her daughter’s arrest, Teodora Gonzáles went to the DINCOTE headquarters several times without obtaining any information. According to the Commission, Mrs. Gonzáles and one of her children were later authorized to visit Gladys Espinoza for a few minutes and, at that time, she broke down and fainted upon seeing her daughter’s physical condition. The Commission considered that the personal integrity of the members of Gladys Espinoza’s family was violated as a result of the steps they took to denounce the torture and rape suffered by the victim, and owing to the failure of the judicial authorities to take any action in this regard. Furthermore, it argued that Mrs. Gonzáles died without having obtained any kind of response to the denunciations of torture presented on behalf of her daughter. Lastly, it indicated that, owing to the prison regime established in article 20 of Decree Law No. 25475, and particularly during the incarceration of Ms. Espinoza Gonzáles in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison, her family were unable to visit her for several years. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the victim’s mother, Teodora Gonzáles, and her brother, Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles. 292. The representatives asserted that Teodora Gonzáles and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles went to the DINCOTE to obtain information on the whereabouts of Gladys Espinoza. There, the agents presumably denied that Gladys Espinoza was detained at that location. Since they could not obtain information from the authorities about the victim’s whereabouts, “Gladys Espinoza’s next of kin decided to have recourse to APRODEH and, through this organization, they contacted the Director of the DINCOTE, and were thus able to obtain information confirming the victim’s detention on those police premises, and were able to see her, but only for a mere five minutes.” According to the representatives, on that occasion, the family found that she had been beaten on different parts of her body. This situation was extremely painful for her family members who, at all times, were in the custody of armed police agents who mocked the victim and asserted that her injuries were self-inflicted. In addition, the uncertainty about Ms. Espinoza’s whereabouts during her transfers and “the absence of specific, reliable and prompt information caused Gladys Espinoza’s family pain and indignation.” 293. The representatives also stated that “during the time Gladys Espinoza was confined in the Yanamayo prison, she was only allowed to receive one visit a month, in the special prison visiting room, and by only one family member.” In view of the difficulties involved in traveling to the prison, the family decided that it should be Gladys Espinoza’s mother “who should make the visits […]”; however, “the conditions of distance, low temperatures, and limited contact, as well