particular circumstances related to the crimes perpetrated against their loved ones126 or as a result of the actions or omissions of state authorities vis-à-vis the events. 127 141. The petitioners maintain that the fact that Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza’s disappearance was not investigated for three years generated a deep sense of anguish and uncertainty among his family members, and that the truth about what had happened was not uncovered until an event occurred that did not come about as a result of the actions of the State. The State did not present any observations on this point. 142. According to the proved facts, during almost three years, the family members of Mr. Palma continued to hope that he would be found alive, a situation that changed only recently with the exhumation and identification of his body. The IACHR believes that if the State had not shown a lack of diligence in investigations aimed at uncovering the events that led to the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Mr. Palma, his family members would not have been exposed to a situation of additional suffering and anguish, which has had an effect on their social relationships. 143. By virtue of the above, the Commission considers that the State of Ecuador violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Palma’s commonlaw wife, Lidia Bravo Bravo; Mr. Palma’s children, Luis Palma Bravo, Nelson Palma Mendoza, and Rosalía Palma Bravo; Mr. Palma’s mother, Perfelita Mendoza Aguayo; Mr. Palma Mendoza’s brothers, Carlos Palma and Víctor Palma; as well as Mr. Palma Mendoza’s cousin, Pablo Palma Pico. VI. CONCLUSIONS 144. Based on the considerations of fact and law presented above, the Commission concludes that the Republic of Ecuador is responsible for the violation of the rights to humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection, and life, enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25, in relation to Article 4 of the American Convention, all in connection with noncompliance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument to the detriment of: Lidia Bravo Bravo, Luis Palma Bravo, Nelson Palma Mendoza, Rosalía Palma Bravo, Perfelita Mendoza Aguayo, Carlos Palma, Víctor Palma, and Pablo Palma Pico. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 145. Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommends that the Ecuadorian State: 4. Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation of the events reported in order to try and punish all of the parties responsible, both materially and intellectually, for the violations of human rights committed to the detriment of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza and his family members. 5. Adopt pertinent measures to make reparations to the family members of Mr. Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza, in both material and moral aspects. 6. Adopt the measures necessary to keep similar events from occurring in the future, according to the duty to prevent violations and the duty to guarantee the fundamental rights recognized in the American Convention and apply the urgent search 126 Inter-American Court. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Vs. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Ser. C. No. 160, para. 335; Case of Vargas Areco Vs. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Ser. C. No. 153, para. 96. 127 Inter-American Court. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas Vs. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Ser. C., No. 213, para. 195.