132. Consequently, the Court finds that, in this case, the State is also responsible for a violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of the family members of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto,160 because it failed to open an investigation into facts that could have constituted ill-treatment or torture. B.5. Conclusion 133. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an investigation with due diligence into the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez within a reasonable time, contained in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of their family. The State is also responsible for a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention because it omitted to investigate the threats made against their family members, 161 and of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture because it failed to investigate the reasonable indications of acts that could have constituted the illtreatment or torture of Robert Díaz Loreto, all to the detriment of the family members of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto.162 VII.3. RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERSS (ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 134. The Commission indicated that the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions of the three victims constituted, in and of themselves, a source of suffering and helplessness for the family members; moreover, there was no investigation conducted with due diligence, and this ran counter their right of access to justice. It stressed that in a context in which there were reports of threats and harassment against them owing to their efforts to expedite the proceedings, the fear of reprisals and for their life and personal safety had also aggravated the feelings of anguish they suffered. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s allegations. 135. The State emphasized that, with the exception of Juana Loreto, none of the alleged victims’ family members had filed actions to seek justice. It added that the family had relinquished the private prosecution and had not appeared at the hearings of the trial to testify. It argued that they had not taken part in the processing of the remedies of appeal and cassation either. The State again asserted that it had been proved that the deaths had occurred in the context of a police operation conducted in keeping with the principles of legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality, which had been investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. On this basis, the State asked the Court to declare that it had not violated the right to personal integrity of the family members. B. Considerations of the Court 136. The Court recalls that, in its case law, it has consistently established that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. 163 In addition, it has indicated that it is possible to declare the violation of the right to integrity of next of kin of 160 See footnote 1. 161 See footnote 1. 162 See footnote 1. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Ruíz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, para. 188. 163 -39-