188. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the State, for the failure to actively investigate the death of Olimpiades González within a reasonable time, has violated the right to judicial guarantees, recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Angélica González, Belkis Mirelis González, Fernando González, Luis Guillermo González, Wilmer Antonio Barliza González and Aura González. B.3. Right to personal integrity of the family members of Olimpiades González 189. The Court has pointed out that the family members of the victims of violations of human rights can be, in turn, victims. According to the circumstances of a case, the Court has held the right to personal integrity of some family members to be violated for the suffering caused by the particular circumstances of violations perpetrated against their loved ones and because of the posterior actions of State authorities regarding the events.174 190. The representatives have claimed that the family members of Olimpiades González believe that their personal integrity was harmed because of his death. It has been determined that the State is not responsible for this circumstance. Therefore, it is not appropriate to conclude who is responsible for the impact that the death might have had on the personal integrity of the family members of Mr. González. 191. The representatives have also manifested that the failure to investigate and the existing impunity “perpetuated” the suffering caused by the death of Mr. González. They claim that the harm to personal integrity is related to his death. It is not possible to determine that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted necessarily produced, in and of itself, harm to personal integrity. 192. The evidence includes a psychological study regarding Belkis González and María Angélica González by the expert Alejandra Cristina Sapene Chapellín.175 This study, although it takes into account the harm to the personal integrity of the alleged victims, relates the harm to diverse intertwined factors, centrally related to the deprivation of liberty, whose consequences on personal liberty have already been analyzed (supra paras. 139 to 155); to the death of Mr. González, and to the current or persistent threats and violence that are not related to the State responsibility analyzed in this case. The study does not show that, in the harm to the personal integrity of the alleged victims, the investigation into the death of Mr. González can be considered autonomously, but rather it is related to other aspects that are central and dominant. The Court considers that, in the specific circumstances of this case, the impact on the victims due to the manner in which the respective actions were conducted into the death of Mr. González are part of the violation to the right to judicial guarantees, which has already been examined (supra paras. 185 to 188). without an end to the investigation, “there has been a lack of the due diligence required by the laws in force at the time of the event, which laws have been maintained in the successive rerforms undergone by the code, which governs criminal procedure in Venezuela.” (Cf. Written expert opinion of Magaly Mercedes Vázquez González.) Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114 and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, para. 217. 174 175 Cf. Written expert opinion of Alejandra Cristina Sapene Chapellín. 47