unconstitutionality action against that law in 1987. However, all were rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice, citing its previous rulings. In all three cases, between 1988 and 1989, the judges handling those cases were notified that the cases had been included in the scope of the Expiry Law. In the case of Silvia Reyes, Laura Raggio y Diana Maidanik, investigations resumed in 2006, only to be closed down again when the case was shelved in 2007. 115. For its part, the State declared that investigations regarding the five alleged victims, in all three cases, are still current. Despite that assertion, the Commission stresses that, at various times, the Expiry Law constituted an obstacle to the investigations. 116. The IACHR considers it unnecessary to go further into the matter of the Expiry law, given that both the Constitution and the Court have already declared its incompatibility with the American Convention. Nevertheless, the IACHR does reiterate that its enforcement in all three cases being analyzed constituted crass failure by the State to meet its obligation to investigate and punish grave human rights violations and to adopt measures under domestic law to ensure that no regulatory obstacle prevents the investigation into said acts. 3. Reasonable time 117. Finally, the IACHR again points out that the events relating to Silvia Reyes, Laura Raggio, and Diana Maidanik, and to Luis Eduardo González, occurred in1974, and those relating to Oscar Tassino Asteazu in 1977. Nevertheless, today, more than 40 years later, they have still not been clarified. The IACHR deems it unnecessary to analyze each of the components of what constitutes a reasonable lapse of time, given that, as already mentioned, the delay stemmed from the fact that absolutely no effort was made to move investigations forward. On the contrary, they were obstructed through the Expiry Law. 4. Conclusion 118. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violating Article XVIII of the American Declaration and Articles 8.1 and 25.1, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Silvia Reyes, Laura Raggio, and Diana Maidanik. In addition, the State is responsible for violating Articles 8.1 and 25.1, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2, of the American Convention, and Article I.b and I.c of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu. D. Right to humane treatment of the next-of-kin (Article 5 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 119. The right to integrity of the person is enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, which provides “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances, may, in turn, be considered victims.139 In that regard, the Court has ruled that their right to mental and moral integrity [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 those facts.140 120. In the instant case, the Commission considers that the mere fact of the extrajudicial executions and disappearances of the victims has triggered profound pain, anguish, and uncertainty in the family members, exacerbated by the violations described in the foregoing sections, including their long quest for justice and the lack of clarification of what happened to their loved one. IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12,488. Merits. Member of the Barrios family. Venezuela. March 16, 2010. 91. IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights. Par. 227; 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, par. 112; and Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, par: 102. 140 I/A Court HR. Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 96. 139 24