31 total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin,”161 and that even though investigations have been conducted impunity subsists whenever the whole truth of the facts has not been determined nor full responsibility apportioned.162 Finally, the Commission has stated that “impunity helps hamper the work of human rights defenders and has an impact on society whereby intimidation prevents it from denouncing any violations it might suffer.”163 136. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the rights of the next-of-kin of Joe Luis Castillo González, namely, his wife, Yelitze Moreno de Castillo; his young son, Luis César Moreno de Castillo; his mother, Yolanda González; his father, Jaime Castillo; his brother, Jaime Castillo González; and his sister, Julijay Castillo González, to a fair trial and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the duty to observe rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. 3. Right to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the American Convention) 137. Article 5(1) of the American Convention provides, “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. The Inter-American Court has held that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims themselves. 164 Specifically, the Court has held that the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims may be impaired as a result of the particular circumstances endured by their loved and subsequent acts or omissions of the domestic authorities in relation to the facts.165 138. In the instant case, the Commission's finds that the facts that occurred activated the duty of the State to investigate the violation of the right to life of Joe Luis Castillo González and the right to humane treatment of Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and Luis César Castillo Moreno, as described above in section IV.B.1 (Right to life, right to humane treatment, and rights of the child). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled, “[t]he obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that the State must adopt to guarantee the rights established in the Convention. Additionally, the State must, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.”166 139. Specifically, the Commission has concluded hereinabove (Section IV.B.2, Right to a fair trial and judicial protection) that in the instant case a complete and effective investigation of the facts was not carried out. In this regard, the Court has ruled that the next of kin of the victims have the right to reparations for the damage they have suffered and States have the obligation to provide them. 167 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 299; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, par. 168; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 266; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 237. 162 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 320. 163 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, par. 108. 164 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, par. 102. 165 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 96. 166 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 98. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, par. 166; I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 142; and I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, par. 99. 167 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 103. I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007,