108 Judicial Police.”441 This testimony is consistent with the one rendered before this Tribunal during the public hearing,442 and with the expert evidence provided.443 438. The State has not specifically disputed these alleged facts or provided any evidence to disprove that they occurred. Consequently, the Court finds that the existence of acts of harassment against Adrián Herrera Monreal has been established. 439. Regarding the González family, neither the representatives nor the Commission described specific facts that reflect the alleged harassment and threats; nor did they develop arguments based on evidence that would allow the Tribunal to reach conclusions regarding the allegation. 440. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the acts of harassment suffered by the next of kin constitute a violation of the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Adrián Herrera Monreal, Benita Monárrez Salgado, Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez, Daniel Ramos Monárrez, Ramón Antonio Aragón Monárrez, Claudia Dayana Bermúdez Ramos, Itzel Arely Bermúdez Ramos, Paola Alexandra Bermúdez Ramos and Atziri Geraldine Bermúdez Ramos. VIII 444 ARTICLE 11 (RIGHT TO PRIVACY [HONOR AND DIGNITY]) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 441. The representatives alleged that “the State violated the right to honor and dignity established in Article 11 of the [Convention], by encouraging an attitude of disrespect towards the victims by the authorities, who made disparaging comments and asked injurious questions to some of the next of kin when they filed their reports, and also made offensive public statements.” In the opinion of the representatives, “by publicly manifesting an attitude of disparagement and contempt towards the victims, the State directly affected their honor and dignity. Furthermore, it did not comply with its obligation to modify cultural patterns promoting discrimination against women, or provide training to the authorities responsible for preventing, sanctioning and eliminating violence against women, as established in Article 8 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” Lastly, they considered that “[t]he actions taken by the mothers to claim justice were stigmatized and ridiculed.” 442. The State affirmed that “the right to honor and dignity of the next of kin of [the three women] was not violated as claimed by the petitioners” because, “during the investigations into the disappearances, the discovery of the remains, and the inquiries to find those responsible for the murders, […] there is no evidence of acts of public 441 Testimony of Irma Monreal Jaime before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders of Women on April 5, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50 docket I volume I, folio 10290). 442 Cf. testimony given by Mrs. Monreal, supra note 183. 443 Cf. testimony of expert witness Azaola Garrido, supra note 186, folio 3366. 444 Article 11 establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.