proceedings, which allowed the case to lapse under the statute of limitations, was the decisive factor that gave rise to the complete and ongoing impunity in the case. 121. For all of the reasons discussed in this chapter, the Court finds that the State of Brazil violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta, Geraldo Gomes Pimenta, Sérgio Sales Pimenta, Marcos Sales Pimenta, José Sales Pimenta, Rafael Sales Pimenta, André Sales Pimenta, and Daniel Sales Pimenta. The Court further concludes that the State violated the right to truth, to the detriment of the aforementioned relatives of Mr. Sales Pimenta, by violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with its Article 1(1). VIII-2 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DUTY TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS 196 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 122. The Commission asserted that the loss of a loved one in a context of violence, in combination with the impunity resulting from a lengthy trial, constitutes a violation of the psychological and emotional integrity of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s family members. 123. The representatives argued that the State violated the right to personal integrity of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s family because of the suffering caused by his murder, the failure to adequately investigate the murder and prosecute those responsible, and the resulting impunity. They noted that over the 23 years of the criminal trial, these relatives felt distraught, frustrated, powerless, angry, unsafe, and hopeless. The father and (now deceased) mother of Mr. Sales Pimenta “completely changed in temperament and lost all joy in life.” 124. The State argued that the alleged violation for the murder of Mr. Sales Pimenta is outside the ratione temporis jurisdiction of the Court. It asserted that with respect to the failure to adequately investigate the crime and punish those responsible, one cannot base a finding of a lack of judicial protection on “mere” assumptions in order to frame it as a supposed violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. It added that if the lack of judicial protection is not established in that article, the article cannot be applied in this specific case. It also reiterated that throughout the trial, it acted appropriately in terms of issuing orders, accusations, instructions, and decisions. Furthermore, the search for the suspects in contempt of court did not cause unjustified delays in the criminal or civil proceedings, as the delays were caused by adverse circumstances. The State also noted the need for indirect relatives, identified as alleged victims, to prove the harm to their personal integrity, and it requested that the body of evidence be analyzed to that end. B. Considerations of the Court 125. The Court has held on several occasions that family members of the victims of human rights violations can be victims in their own right. 197 The Court has considered that it is possible to declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of “direct family members” of victims and other individuals with close ties to those victims, owing to the additional suffering they have experienced as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and due to the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities in relation to those 196 Articles 1(1) and 5 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 185. 197 34