- 113 - Therefore, the Court considers that the State violated the obligation to respect and to ensure, without discrimination, the rights contained in the American Convention (Article 1(1)), and recalls that the State has acknowledged the violation of the right to equality before the law recognized in Article 24 of the Convention. B.4 General conclusion 318. Based on the above and in light of the acknowledgement made by the State, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and recalls that the State acknowledged the violation of Article 24 of the Convention, to the detriment of Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez. IX-4 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY427 OF THE NEXT OF KIN, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE THESE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 319. The Commission alleged that the egregious nature of the facts that occurred and the situation of impunity due to the absence of a “prompt judicial response,” had violated the personal integrity of the victims’ next of kin. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s allegation concerning the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the family members of the eleven presumed victims, and described the specific effects on the members of each family unit. In general, they determined that several aspects of the life projects of the family groups were affected. Many of the members were obliged to abandon their studies or their jobs, to sell some of their possession to cover the expenses entailed by the judicial proceedings, and to make a significant economic effort in order to travel to where the victims were detained in order to visit them or to provide them with basic items for subsistence inside the prison. In their final written arguments, the representatives reiterated the arguments they had presented at previous stages and added “further details of the effects that the facts of this case had had on the victims’ next of kin, based on the new evidence produced.” The State acknowledged its international responsibility for the “violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin as a result of what the victims had suffered.” B. Considerations of the Court 320. The Court has indicated on numerous occasions that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may also, in turn, be victims. 428 In this regard, the Court has indicated that it is Article 5(1) of the Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 427 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 262. 428