seriousness of the facts and the context of the case.151 This aspect is analyzed in the chapter on Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (infra VII-3). Despite this, the Court reiterates that, according to its consistent case law, the impunity that persists in the case, which resulted in the denial of access to justice (infra para. 201) resulted in harm to the personal integrity of the next of kin of the deceased victims.152 In cases of collective deprivation of life, the Court considers that no evidence is required to prove the serious effects on the mental integrity of the next of kin of the executed victims.153 The Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims is violated based on the additional suffering and anguish they have experienced owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities with regard to these facts, given the absence of effective remedies,154 and the prolonged impunity in the case.155 Thus, in this case the Court concludes that Article 5(1) of the Convention was violated to the detriment of the next of kin of the deceased victims and the survivors. b) Treatment of the survivors 106. The Court has observed that, following the pursuit and the truck accident, the military agents required the survivors to lift the vehicle, remove and separate the dead and the wounded, and put them into the ambulance (supra para. 50). Some of the survivors were taken to a hospital. According to the testimony provided, the wounded were not treated adequately or registered when being admitted to the hospital156 (supra para. 51). 107. Josier Maxime indicated that “[while he] was in the hospital, [… they] were not attended to. [They] were placed in a vehicle with a soldier and deported.”157 In addition, Noclair Florevilien indicated during the public hearing, with regard to the attention he received in the hospital, that “it appeared that, at that moment, even the dogs were more important than [they] were.”158 108. The Court notes that emergency medical care must be provided at all times for irregular migrants; accordingly, the States must provide comprehensive health care taking into account the needs of vulnerable groups. 159 Thus, the State must ensure that goods and services related to health care are accessible to all, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalized sectors of the population, without discrimination based on the prohibited conditions set out in Article 1(1) of the Convention.160 151 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 157, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 220. 152 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 161. 153 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 146, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206.. 154 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala, supra, para. 114, and Case of the Río Negro Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 240. 155 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 215 and 217. 156 The State indicated that, in keeping with the events that had occurred, the authorities assisted and offered help to the victims, transferring them to the hospital so that would receive free specialized medical care in order to protect their life and physical integrity (merits file, tome II, folio 925). However, this contradicts testimony of the Director General of the Jose María Cabral Báez Regional University Hospital who stated that “[the] Haitian citizens were neither received nor attended to in [the] Hospital.” Note of the Director General of the Hospital of July 11, 2012, supra, folio 4107.1. 157 Statement of Josier Maxime during the public hearing. 158 Statement of Noclair Florvilien during the public hearing. 159 Cf. Resolution 1509 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, para. 13.2 160 Cf. World Health Organization. International Migration Health and Human Rights. No. 4, December 2003. 33