the Court found that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims [may be] violated based on the ... particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts. 174 205. Concretely, the Commission has concluded that in the instant case a thorough and effective investigation of the events was not conducted. In these circumstances, the Court has held: The absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the determination of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their corresponding responsibilities.175 206. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that the loss of a loved one in circumstances such as those described in this case, as well as the lack of a thorough and effective investigation which in turn causes pain and anguish if the truth is not revealed, in themselves constitute harm to the mental and moral integrity of the members of Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa's family. Added to the foregoing is the intimidation that Mrs. Patricia Trujillo Esparza said she suffered when the policemen involved in the operation burst into her home and told her that her husband was “dead because he [was] going to die.” 207. Consequently, the Commission considers that the State of Ecuador is responsible for violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mrs. Patricia Esparza Trujillo. VII. CONCLUSIONS A. Based on the factual and legal considerations contained in this report, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Ecuador is responsible for: a) violation of the right to life recognized at Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa; b) violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Ms. Patricia Alejandra Trujillo Esparza; and c) violation of the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Patricia Alexandra Trujillo Esparza. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS B. Based on the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF ECUADOR, 174I/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, par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 96. 175I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. T. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 102. Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par. 195; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, par. 181; I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 146, and I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C, No. 168, par. 102.