D. Right to humane treatment of the families of victims (Article 5(1) of the American Convention) 165. As the Inter-American Court has found in numerous cases that the next-of-kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, become victims.125 In particular, in cases of forced disappearance, the Court has held that it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim’s next of kin is a direct result of this phenomenon, and that the forced disappearance causes severe anguish owing to the act itself, which is exacerbated, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim or to open an effective investigation to clarify what occurred.126 Thus, the Court has concluded that the continued deprivation of the truth concerning the fate of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the close family.127 166. In addition, faced with a forced disappearance, the State has an obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of the family members also by conducting effective investigations. Moreover, the Court has found the absence of effective remedies to be a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims and their next of kin.128 In this case, given that the family saw no response on the part of the authorities, the victim's wife took it upon herself to search for him, as is recorded in the statement presented on July 22, 1989, to the Office of the State Attorney for Human Rights: I searched the region high and low for him, along the river, in cattle pastures, as that is where bodies in all these parts turn up, but I could not find him.129 167. The Commission notes that as at this writing the family of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe were ignorant of his fate or whereabouts and had not received an adequate judicial response. The State has not provided the family of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe with an effective judicial remedy by which to establish the truth, punish the perpetrators and masterminds, and make adequate reparation. 168. It is also worth pointing out that because of the wave of violence and the fear that it caused, Mr. Isaza Uribe’s wife and children felt compelled to leave Puerto Nare and moved to the municipality of Copacabana in Antioquia Department. 169. The Commission considers that, based on the nature of the facts in this case, the situation of impunity, and the inevitable effects on the victim's immediate family, the State also violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations set out in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe’s family. VI. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violating the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, freedom of association, a fair trial, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 7 3, 4, 5, 7, 16, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof to the detriment of the persons named in the course of this report. The 125 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C, No. 70, par. 160. 126 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C, No. 202, par. 105. 127 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C, No. 209, par. 166. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C, No. 202, par. 113. 129 Annex. Expanded complaint filed by Carmenza Vélez with the Office of the State Attorney for Human Rights. Annex to the initial petition.