principle, 199 this Court considers that the rule is incompatible with the principle of judicial independence recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 155. In view of the foregoing, this Court concludes that, over several decades, the State prevented the relatives of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal from accessing information relevant to the clarification of his forced disappearance in the context of the coup d'état of July 17, 1980, and restricted the judicial proceedings related to that information. Therefore, it violated the rights to seek and receive information, and to judicial independence enshrined in Articles 13(1), 13(2), and 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, as well as the right to know the truth, to the detriment of Olga Beatriz, Eliana Isbelia, Verónica, and Lilian Teresa Flores Bedregal. VII-IV RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS 200 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 156. The Commission noted that the forced disappearance of Mr. Flores Bedregal and the lack of clarification have caused a deep sense of pain, anguish, and uncertainty among his relatives, which has been deepened by the long search for justice and the lack of clarification of what happened to him. Consequently, it requested that the State be held responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Flores Bedregal's sisters. 157. The representatives agreed with the Commission's allegations and argued that the suffering resulting from the lack of information about Mr. Flores Bedregal's whereabouts and impunity for the crime made it impossible for his relatives to complete their mourning. They also alleged that they have been subjected to stigmatization and threats as a result of their search for justice, which has affected the full potential of their mental health. It alleged that, as part of the search for justice, they participated in acts of protest in which they suffered a series of violations of their rights. First, in 2009, Ms. Olga Flores Bedregal was arrested without a warrant by the Police of the Prosecutor's Office during a protest, and was held in a garage of the Prosecutor's Office where she was kept incommunicado. An application for habeas corpus was filed, which was denied by the judicial authority. Second, the victim's relatives and his lawyer were followed, and the Ombudsman's Office requested that protection measures be adopted, but these were never applied. Thirdly, in 2010, both relatives of the alleged victim and other victims of the dictatorship were brutally repressed by the police as they left a mass organized by human rights activists. Other acts of protest included hunger strikes by Mrs. Olga Flores Bedregal in order to achieve the opening of military archives. 158. The State alleged that although the Flores Bedregal sisters are relatives of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, they do not constitute "injured parties" or "victims՚" and questioned their "emotional bond." Regarding the alleged threats against Olga Flores and the request made for protection measures, the State alleged that it did not inform the judicial authority or the National Police of any information about threats. On the other hand, it argued that the Commission incurs in a contradiction in pointing out that the relatives of the alleged victim took various steps with public institutions, since there is no evidence to support it. It 199 Cf. inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 117. 200 Articles 5 and 1(1) of the American Convention, respectively. 47