4. Right to humane treatment with regard to the relatives (Article 5 of the American Convention) 284. The right to humane treatment in Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes that “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 285. The case law of the Inter-American Court has established that the relatives of victims can, for their part, be affected by the violation of their right to psychological and moral integrity.357 Thus, the InterAmerican Court has found the right to the psychological and moral integrity of the relatives of the victims to have been violated based on the additional suffering they experienced due to the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones358 and due to the actions or omissions of State authorities with regard to the facts.359 286. The Commission has found it establish that in this case, the acts of violence suffered by Linda Loaiza López directly affected her family starting at the moment she was deprived of liberty on March 27, 2001. This suffering was aggravated as a result of the authorities’ failure to act in response to the report that Ana Secilia López tried to file starting on the day after her sister’s disappearance to locate her. The testimony of Linda Loaiza López’s parents and her siblings reveals the anguish they experienced on not knowing her whereabouts and not being able to do anything to find her. Also, as was established, the López Soto family reported having been subjected to threats and harassment by the person allegedly responsible for the facts of violence suffered by Linda Loaiza. The authorities failed to respond to these, which increased their situation of vulnerability. 287. Likewise, the IACHR takes into account the testimony of Linda Loaiza López’s parents on the impact they suffered when they saw her for the first time following her rescue. At that time, her mother, Mrs. Paulina Soto de López,, was pregnant, and as family, her perception is that the months of suffering over Linda Loaiza López’s disappearance, plus finally finding her in such terrible condition, affected her health and pregnancy. In that context, the IACHR notes the poor treatment given by the Venezuelan authorities when Mr. Nelson López and Mrs. Paulina Soto arrived in Caracas to see their daughter: They were not initially allowed to see her, and they had to do legal procedures to demonstrate they were her parents. 288. Finally, the Commission finds that the denial of justice in this case has likewise affected the members of the López Soto family, altered the family dynamic, and had an impact on their financial situation that was aggravated by the various expenditures they had to make to travel to the city of Caracas and do the necessary paperwork for the criminal process so they themselves could lobby for justice for the violence suffered by Linda Loaiza López. There is a latent sense in their story of the desperation experienced on failing to be treated properly by the authorities who participated in the investigation of the facts, having been subjected to acts of violence during the judicial process, and having the conviction that they did not have equal access to justice in that justice system. 289. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds it establish that the effects of the gravity of the facts that took place, plus the absence of a timely and adequate judicial response extend beyond the direct victim to the victim’s relatives. In this sense, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the 357 Inter-American Court. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 101; Case of the “Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206 and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 163. 358 Inter-American Court. Case of Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 335; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 96; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 96. 359 Inter-American Court. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment dated May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 195.