in relation to Articles 1.1, 5.1, 5.2, 11, and 13 thereof, Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT, to the detriment of Jineth Bedoya. C. Analysis of the violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5.1) and in relation to the general obligation to respect rights (Article 1.1) of the American Convention 135. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that the relatives of the victims of certain human rights violations can, in turn, be victims. 238 Specifically, the Court has said that the mental and emotional integrity of victims’ relatives can be affected as a consequence of the particular situations experienced by their loved ones, and of the subsequent acts or omissions of national authorities vis-à-vis such events. 239 The InterAmerican Court has also established that “the 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, try to reestablish a right that has been violated and, if applicable, repair the damage produced by human rights violations.” 240 Accordingly, the Inter-American Court has held that the absence of effective remedies is a source of additional suffering and distress for victims’ relatives. 136. The IACHR observes that, although it did not address the alleged violations of Article 5.1 in its admissibility report, the facts that support those violations are an integral and essential part of the case and, moreover, arise from the information and documents provided by the parties over the course of the proceedings before the IACHR. 137. With respect to the violation of Jineth Bedoya’s mother’s right to humane treatment, the Commission observes that, as has been set forth, the State is responsible for failing to investigate the threats, kidnapping, torture, and sexual violence with due diligence, to the detriment of the journalist. It finds that the absence of a diligent investigation has affected the mental and emotional integrity of the journalist’s mother, in addition to the suffering and distress caused by the more than 18-year delay in obtaining justice. The IACHR concludes that the State violated the rights enshrined in Article 5.1 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Luz Nelly Lima. V. CONCLUSIONS 138. Based on the foregoing legal and factual considerations, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Colombian State is responsible for: • • • The violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, privacy, freedom of expression, and equal protection, enshrined in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7, 11, 13, and 24 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT, to the detriment of Jineth Bedoya. The violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1, 5.1, 5.2, 11, and 13 thereof, Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT, to the detriment of Jineth Bedoya. The violation of the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1. thereof, to the detriment of Luz Nelly Lima. I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. Para. 112; I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164. Para. 102. 239 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. Para. 112; I/A Court H.R. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155. Para. 96. 240 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. Para. 98; I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4. Para. 166; I/A Court H.R. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C, No. 186. Para. 142; I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C, No. 168. Para. 99. 238 34