136. Finally, in terms of the procedural activity of the interested parties, the Commission notes that after the State first received the report on the crime of disappearance, which is a crime of public action, the State should have conducted its own investigation, with or without the participation of the interested parties. Court documents establish independently that Mr. Palma’s family members made declarations in a timely manner and reported on the possible participation of members of the FAE in Mr. Palma’s kidnapping since these FAE members were at the scene of the crime. The family also sent various communications to the Chief of the Naval High Command, to the Interim President of the Republic, and to the Minister of National Defense. Later, on June 9, 1998, Marco Bienvenido Palma’s common-law wife informed the Chief of the O.I.D. about the alleged participation of Mr. Lenin Ordóñez in the crime and at that time no procedures were conducted to determine the veracity of the information provided. 137. The delay in judicial action constitutes a violation of the State’s duty to uncover the facts and to try and punish those responsible for serious violations, according to standards of reasonable timeliness and effective judicial protection.123 138. Based on the elements of fact and law analyzed above, the Commission concludes that, in this case, effective recourse was not provided to Mr. Palma’s family members within a reasonable time period in order to guarantee them access to justice and to the investigation and trial of the responsible parties as well as to reparations for damages related to Mr. Palma’s kidnapping and murder. Therefore, the State is responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 4(1) and 1(1) of that international instrument, to the detriment of the family members of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza. 3. Right to humane treatment (Articles 5 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) 139. The right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes that “every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” In this sense the Commission has recognized that: The American Convention is based on fundamental principles including the recognition that the rights and liberties that it protects are derived from the attributes of the human personality. From this principle comes the basic requirement that undergirds the Convention as a whole, and Article 5 in particular, that individuals must be treated with dignity and respect.124 140. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court has established that the family members of the victims may, in turn, suffer from violations of their right to mental and moral integrity.125 Thus, the Inter-American Court has considered that family members’ right to mental and moral integrity is violated when they suffer additionally as a result of the 123 Inter-American Court. Case of The Massacre de Mapiripán Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005, Ser. C., No. 134, para. 190. 124 125 IACHR, Report No. 38/00, Case 11.743, Merits, Rudolph Baptiste, Grenada, April 13, 2000, para. 89. Inter-American Court. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez Vs. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merit, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Ser. C., No. 99, para. 101; Case of The Dos Erres Massacre Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Ser. C., No. 211, para. 206, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merit, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Ser. C. No. 186, para. 163.