-105violations of humane treatment by having to observe such acts against others and the assassination of the latter, which caused them to fear the same fate. Thus, it would be illogical to limit the determination of acts contrary to humane treatment to only some of the alleged victims. 153. This finding leads the Court to conclude that, because it failed in its prevention, protection and investigation obligations, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty embodied in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, owing to failure to comply with its obligation to ensure these rights, to the detriment of the following six persons deprived of life: Andrés Manuel Peroza Jiménez, Juan Luis Escobar Duarte, José Leonel Escobar Duarte, Ovidio Carmona Suárez, Ricardo Bohórquez Pastrana and Jorge David Martínez Moreno, and of the following 37 disappeared: José del Carmen Álvarez Blanco, Fermín Agresott Romero, Víctor Argel Hernández, Genor Arrieta Lora, Cristóbal Manuel Arroyo Blanco, Diómedes Barrera Orozco, Urías Barrera Orozco, Jorge Fermín Calle Hernández, Jorge Arturo Castro Galindo, Benito Genaro Calderón Ramos, Juan Miguel Cruz (or Cruz Ruiz), Ariel Dullis Díaz Delgado, Camilo Antonio Durango Moreno, César Augusto Espinoza Pulgarín, Wilson Uberto Fuentes Miramón, Andrés Manuel Flórez Altamiranda, Santiago Manuel González López, Carmelo Manuel Guerra Pestana, Miguel Ángel Gutiérrez Arrieta, Lucio Miguel Úrzola Sotelo, Ángel Benito Jiménez Julio, Miguel Ángel López Cuadro, Mario Melo Palacio, Carlos Antonio Melo Uribe, Juan Bautista Meza Salgado, Pedro Antonio Mercado Montes, Manuel de Jesús Montes Martínez, José Encarnación Barrera Orozco, Luis Carlos Ricardo Pérez, Miguel Antonio Pérez Ramos, Raúl Antonio Pérez Martínez, Benito José Pérez Pedroza, Elides Manuel Ricardo Pérez, José Manuel Petro Hernández, Luis Miguel Salgado Berrío, Célimo Arcadio Hurtado and Jesús Humberto Barbosa Vega. d) The right to humane treatment of the next of kin of those disappeared and deprived of life 154. This Court has stated on many occasions,224 that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may also be victims. In this regard, the Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims has been violated owing to their suffering as a result of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities with regard to the events.225 155. In this case, the Court considers it has been proved that the paramilitary group that raided Pueblo Bello ransacked some of the houses, mistreating the occupants, and took an unknown number of men from their homes to the village square. Also, some members of the armed group entered the church in front of the square and ordered the women and children to remain inside and the men to go out into the square. Several of the villagers saw how the paramilitary group took their next of kin and witnessed how the latter were tied up, gagged and obliged to get into the two trucks used to transport the paramilitary group (supra paras. 95(33) and 224 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 60; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, paras. 144 and 146, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 214, paras. 113 and 114. 225 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 60, Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, paras. 144 and 146, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 214, paras. 113 and 114.