93. Regarding the families of the victims that suffered certain human rights violations, the Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated that they can also be considered as victims. 131 In this regard, the Court has established that their psychical and moral integrity can be affected as a result of the particular situations that the victims endured, as well as the subsequent proceedings or omissions of the internal authorities before these events132. In the present case, the Commission established that Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina lost their lives in extrajudicial executions in the hands of State security agents after a persecution connected to the alleged criminality of Mr. Guerrero. Moreover, it was established that the events are part of a context of serious state police violence and its lack of investigation. 94. In addition to these circumstances that constitute a source of suffering and impotence, the Commission observes that in the present case the investigations were not carried out with due diligence. In this type of circumstances, the Court has indicated that the absence of a complete and effective investigation over the facts “constitutes an additional source of suffering and distress for the victims and their families, who have the right to discover the truth about the events. This right to the truth requires the procedural determination of the most complex historical truth possible, which includes the judicial determination of the patterns of joint performance of action and of all the persons involved in such violations and their respective responsibilities.”133. Therefore, the Commission considers that the pain and suffering of the families of the victims that were extrajudicially executed has magnified due to the lack of response before the unjust actions. 95. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the disappearance of a loved one as in the circumstances described herein, as well as the absence of truth and justice, caused suffering and distress to the families of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina and violated their right to psychical and moral integrity, established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96. Based on factual and legal determinations, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4.1 (right to life), 5.1 (right to humane treatment), 8.1 and 25.1 (right to fair trial and judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1.1 of the same treaty, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 97. By virtue of the above conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF VENEZUELA 1. Comprehensively repair human rights violations stated in this report both in the material and immaterial aspect, including an economic compensation and satisfaction measures. 2. Provide the necessary physical and mental health assistance for the rehabilitation of the families of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina in a concerted manner if this is their will. 3. Conclude the criminal investigation with due diligence, in an effective way and within the reasonable time with the purpose of clarifying the facts completely, identifying all possible responsibilities and establishing I/A Court. H.R. Case Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 112; and Case Bueno Alves Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164. para. 102. See also: IACHR. Report No. 58/12. Case 12.606. Merits. Landaeta Mejías Brothers. Venezuela. March 21, 2012, para. 256. 132 I/A Court. H.R. Case Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 112; and Case Vargas Areco Vs. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. para. 96. 133 I/A Court. H.R. Case Valle Jaramillo and others Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 102; Case of La Rochela’s Massacre Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 195; and Case Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panama. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 146.. 131 20