101 the different institutions and to deploy domestic mechanisms to obtain information to locate the girls rapidly and, once their bodies were found, to conduct the investigations, and prosecute and punish those responsible effectively and promptly. In summary, the State did not prove that it has proper reaction mechanisms or public policies that would provide the institutions involved with the necessary means to ensure the rights of the girls. 411. Consequently, this Court finds that the State violated the right embodied in Article 19 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the girls Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez. 6. Right to humane treatment of the victims’ next of kin 412. The Tribunal has determined that there is no longer a dispute concerning the alleged violations of the right embodied in Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin, based on the violations accepted by the State during the “first stage” of the investigations (supra para. 20). Despite this, the Court finds it appropriate to define the meaning and scope of these violations. In addition, it will determine whether Article 5 of the Convention was violated by facts other than those acknowledged by the State. In this regard, the Tribunal will examine the effect on the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin as a result of what happened to the latter, the investigations conducted to determine what occurred, and the treatment that the authorities accorded to the next of kin and to the victims’ remains. Subsequently, it will examine the alleged violations owing to acts of harassment, intimidation, and threats against the victims’ next of kin. 6.1. Suffering of the next of kin because of what happened to the victims and because of their search for the truth 413. The Commission alleged that the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ mothers were affected as a direct consequence of the sudden disappearance of their daughters, the ignorance of their whereabouts for a considerable period of time, and the absence of an investigation into what happened, as well as owing to the treatment they received from the authorities, ranging from indifference to hostility. 414. The representatives alleged that “[t]he disappearance, torture and murder [of the victims], the destruction of their remains, and the absence of an appropriate, timely and effective response by the authorities to clarify the circumstances of their deaths, caused considerable damage to the physical and mental health of the next of kin, their quality of life and life project and their feeling of wellbeing, and significantly violated their sense of dignity, security and membership in a community where the rights of the victims are recognized and respected, placing a limit on what they expect from life.” 415. On other occasions, the Tribunal has declared that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.422 422 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, supra note 309, para. 77, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 105. Nevertheless, in its judgment in the Valle Jaramillo case, the Court established that suffering could not be presumed as regards the next of kin who did not belong to the nucleus of “direct family members,” but that, in such cases, the Court must examine whether there were, inter alia, ties of affection, suffering, or whether they had taken part in the search for truth. In the instant case, the State acquiesced as regards the alleged suffering of the next of kin, therefore the Tribunal will not