164. Lastly, the Court has determined that the inadequate living conditions of the members of a community and their general state of abandonment cause suffering that necessarily affects the mental and moral integrity of the members of the said community.255 This is the case of the surviving victims of the massacres who now live in the Pacux settlement.256 165. Consequently, the Court considers that Guatemala has violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 12(1) and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the community of Río Negro who live in Pacux. The names of these persons are included in Annex VII of this Judgment. C.3. Alleged violation of Article 16 of the American Convention. 166. The Court observes that both the Commission and the representatives also argued that Guatemala had violated Article 16 of the American Convention. For its part, the State acknowledged its international responsibility to the extent that the said violation “c[ould] have transcended in time” up until the moment at which Guatemala accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction (supra para. 17(f)). 167. Article 16(1) of the American Convention establishes that everyone under the jurisdiction of the States Parties has the right and freedom to associate freely with other persons, without any interference from the public authorities that may limit or hinder the exercise of the said right. Thus, this is the right to associate in order to seek the common achievement of a legal objective, without pressures or interferences that could alter or impair this objective.257 Furthermore, Article 16(2) of this treaty establishes that the exercise of the right to associate freely “shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.” 168. In the instant case, the Court considers that the community of Río Negro cannot be implicitly equated to an “association” in the terms of Article 16 of the American Convention. Thus, the Court underscores that neither the Inter-American Commission nor the representatives indicated the reasons why the community of Río Negro, which is indigenous in nature, is covered by the right recognized in Article 16 of the Convention. Therefore, even though the State acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of this right, the Court considers that the said provision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 255 Expert opinion provided by Alfredo Itzep Manuel by affidavit (merits file, tome II, folio 1050). 256 Cf. testimony provided during the public hearing by Jesús Tecú Osorio and Carlos Chen Osorio. Also, testimony provided by affidavit on June 15, 2012, by Bruna Pérez Osorio (merits file, tome II, folio 994); María Osorio Chen (merits file, tome II, folio 1000), and Antonia Osorio Sánchez (merits file, tome II, folio 1004); the expert opinion provided by Rosalina Tuyuc Velásquez during the public hearing, and expert opinion provided by Alfredo Itzep Manuel by affidavit (merits file, tome II folio 1050). 257 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61 para. 156, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 99. 64