35 171. The Commission notes that the petitioners requested that the case be removed from the archive on April 19, 2001, when the Amnesty Laws were ruled incompatible with the American Convention, and the proceedings continued until December 24, 2008, when the first-instance judgment of July 23, 2008, became final. The Commission notes that the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office during this stage in the proceedings was marked by an absence of procedural initiative. Thus, the established facts show that the Prosecutor’s Office requested extensions of the committal proceedings deadline on at least four occasions and failed to observe the legally established time frames, as can be seen in the National Criminal Chamber’s resolution of May 31, 2006, denying the final extension request lodged by the prosecutor. The Commission notes that when the prosecutor filed charges against Sergeant Second-Class Evangelista Pinedo on July 14, 2006, practically no formalities had been carried out other than those performed prior to the archiving of the case in 1995. 172. The established facts also indicate that after the case was removed from the archive on January 21, 2003, the accused could not be located and that the judicial authorities took no steps to locate him; consequently, on October 3, 2006, the accused was a fugitive from justice, even though on July 14, 2006, the Fourth National Superior Criminal Prosecutor had filed charges against him. In this regard, the Commission notes that according to the established facts, two years after the charges were filed the authorities located the accused by accident, while he was in prison for the alleged commission of another crime. The State did not indicate exactly since when Mr. Evangelista Pinedo had been an inmate of that prison. 173. Pursuant to the analysis offered in this chapter, to the parties’ contentions, and to the established facts, the Commission believes that the State did violate the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, with respect to the next-of-kin of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez Chávez, and with respect to Luis Bejarano Laura, by failing to conduct the investigation within a reasonable time. 3. Right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the American Convention) with respect to the next-of-kin of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez Chávez and with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura 174. The petitioners claim that the State is responsible for violating Article 5 of the American Convention with respect to the victims’ next-of-kin, in that they have suffered greatly from the unexpected loss of their loved ones and from the serious injuries suffered by Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura as a consequence of the actions of state agents in the case at hand. They claim that the suffering of the victims’ next-of-kin was heightened as a consequence of the numerous difficulties encountered during the processing of the criminal trial for the killing and serious injuring of their loved ones, the archiving of the case under the Amnesty Law, and the difficulties in reopening the case and in locating and arresting the suspect. The State offered no arguments on this point. 175. The Commission notes that in accordance with precedent established by the Inter178 American Court, “the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, become victims.” Thus, the Inter-American Court has found violations of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next-of-kin violated based on the additional suffering they have undergone as a consequence of 179 the specific circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones and based on the 180 subsequent actions or omissions of state authorities regarding those facts. 178 I/A Court H. R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 101; I/A Court H. R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 160; I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 105; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Street Children (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 175; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C No. 43, (Art. 63.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C No. 43, para. 59. 179 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 335; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of