79 the Convention, in relation to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, and in Articles 7(b) and 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, José Roberto Franco, and of the grandparents who are now deceased, Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco and Roberto Franco Pérez. 226. The Court considers that the arguments relating to the violation of Article 19 of the Convention were already examined in the preceding chapter. Moreover, the Court does not find that there were special measures that the State should have adopted in the investigation following the discovery of the body based on the victim’s condition as a child. Therefore, the Court will not rule in this regard in this section. Also, in relation to the alleged violation of the obligation to ensure the rights of María Isabel Veliz Franco owing to the absence of investigation, the pertinent elements relating to the State’s conduct up until the moment the body was discovered have already been examined (supra para. 157). X RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 227. The Commission indicated in its Merits Report that the State had violated Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, José Roberto Franco Sandoval, Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco and Roberto Franco Pérez, because: “it this case, the irregularities and delays on the part of the […] State in the prevention and in the investigation into the disappearance of María Isabel Veliz Franco and her subsequent murder [had] caused her next of kin profound suffering and anguish, and despite the seriousness of the crimes, nine years ha[d] passed since the body of the murder victim [had been] found and yet those responsible ha[d]not been punished.” It also observed “the little importance State officials attached to the concerns and suffering of the mother of María Isabel Veliz Franco, […] when she tried to move the investigation forward.” 228. The representative agreed with the Commission’s observations and indicated that her mother, grandparents and brothers “lived with María Isabel at the time of her death and had close ties to her, so that they suffered anguish and uncertainty owing to the inaction of the authorities once the disappearance had been reported.” It added that “[…] throughout the investigation process, it was said that María Isabel was someone who “had connections with maras,” “had numerous boyfriends,” and she was even referred to as “la loca” (the crazy one). Furthermore, her mother was described as being negligent […]”; these characterizations “increased the profound suffering that the members of María Isabel’s family were already enduring.” 229. It also argued that “[i]n her efforts to obtain justice for her daughter, Rosa Elvira has been exposed to numerous threats and harassment that have caused anguish and pain, not only to her, but also to María Isabel’s brothers and grandparents, given the possibility that her personal integrity or even her life could be harmed […].” Lastly, the representative mentioned that “[t]he facts of this case leave no doubt about the suffering that the child María Isabel suffered. These facts also had a profound effect on her mother, brothers, grandmother and grandfather who, in addition to experiencing the anguish of her disappearance and the suffering for the loss of a loved one, had to face the denigration of María Isabel and attacks on her memory.” 230. The State argued that “the content of the investigation files proves that it did not violate the rights of the victim or of her mother,” and affirmed that “it regrets, and sympathizes with [María Isabel’s family] for the suffering that her tragic death has caused them; however, the suffering caused by the events is a consequence of those events and is not caused by the State.” It added that “in the respective public institutions, the State