69 161. This Court has even stated, in the recent “Street Children” case, that the mothers of the victims suffered due to the negligence of the authorities in establishing the latter's identity; because the said State agents “did not make the necessary efforts to immediately locate the relatives” of the victims and notify them of their death, delaying the opportunity to give them “burial according to their traditions”; because the public authorities abstained from investigating the corresponding crimes and punishing those responsible. In that case, the suffering of the victims' next of kin also arose from the treatment of the corpses, because they appeared after several days, abandoned in an uninhabited place with signs of extreme violence, exposed to the inclemency of the weather and the action of animals. Such treatment of the victims' remains, “which were sacred to their families and, particularly, their mothers, constituted cruel and inhuman treatment for them.”108 162. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has also accepted that, when fundamental human rights are violated, such as the right to life or the right to humane treatment, the persons closest to the victim may also be considered victims. That Court had the occasion to go on record on the condition of victim of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of a mother due to the detention and disappearance of her son and, to this end, it evaluated the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the ill-treatment and the fact that she did not receive official information to clarify the facts. In view of these considerations, the European Court concluded that this person had also been a victim and that the State was responsible for violating Article 3 of the European Convention109. 163. Recently that Court developed this concept further, emphasizing that the following were included among the issues to be considered: the closeness of the family relationship, the particular circumstances of the relationship with the victim, the degree to which the family member was a witness of the events related to the disappearance, the way in which the family member was involved in attempts to obtain information about the disappearance of the victim and the State's response to the steps undertaken110. 164. In the same way, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has stated that the next of kin of those who are detained and disappear should be considered victims of ill treatment, among other violations. In the Quinteros v. Uruguay (1983), the Human Rights Committee indicated that it understood the profound grief and anguish that the author of the communication suffered owing to the disappearance of her daughter and the continued uncertainty about her fate and her whereabouts. The author has the right to know what has happened to her daughter. In this respect, she is also a victim of violations of the [International] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], in particular article 7 (corresponding to Article 5 of the American Convention], suffered by her daughter111. 108 Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 174. 109 Cf. Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey, supra note 90, paras. 130-134. 110 Cf. Eur. Court HR, Timurtas v. Turkey, Judgment of 13 June 2000; para. 95; and Eur. Court HR, Çakici v. Turkey, Judgment of 8 July 1999, para. 98. 111 Cf. United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay, 21 July 1983 (19th session) Communication Nº 107/1981, para. 14; [17th to 32nd sessions (October 1982 to April 1988)]. Selection of Decisions of the Human Rights Committee adopted in accordance with the Optional Protocol, Vol. 2, 1992.