53 255. Based on the analysis contained in this chapter, the Commission finds that the facts surrounding the disappearance of the victims in the case almost 20 years ago have not been diligently investigated, nor have the myriad violations that occurred in the course thereof been examined. Moreover, during that time the State failed to adopt the necessary measures to fully identify the remains of the persons found on July 18, 1991, in an attempt to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared as well as prosecute and punish all those responsible. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the judicial authorities have acted with a lack of diligence and willingness to boost the criminal proceeding forward in a bid to clarify all the events that occurred on July 4, 1991, and punish those responsible. 256. Based on the submissions of the parties, the established facts, and the analysis performed, the Commission concludes that, almost 20 years after the forced disappearance of the 15 victims, the true facts of which have yet to be fully disclosed, the domestic criminal proceedings have not constituted effective remedies to ascertain the fate of the victims or to ensure the rights of access to justice and to know the truth through the investigation and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible, or to provide full reparation for the consequences of violations. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and I.b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the eight adults and seven children who disappeared, and their next of kin. 5. Right to humane treatment (Articles 5 and 1(1) of the American Convention) of the victims’ next-of-kin 257. 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.” In that regard, the Commission has recognized that: Among the fundamental principles upon which the American Convention is grounded is the recognition that the rights and freedoms protected thereunder are derived from the attributes of their human personality. From this principle flows the basic requirement underlying the Convention as a whole, and Article 5 in particular, that individuals be treated with dignity and 227 respect. 258. The case-law of the Inter-American Court has established that the next-of-kin of the victims of 228 human rights violations may, in turn, be victims of abridgment of the right to mental and moral integrity. Thus, the Inter-American Court has considered that the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin has been violated in light of the additional suffering experienced as a result of the specific circumstances surrounding the 227 228 IACHR. Report 38/00, Case 11.743, Merits, Rudolph Baptiste, Grenada, April 13, 2000, par. 89. I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99, par. 101; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C, No. 211, par. 206; and Case of HeliodoroPortugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C, No. 186, par. 163,