275. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State failed to meet the reasonable period guarantee in the investigation of the facts of the instant case, in violation of the rights established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and their next of kin as set out in paragraphs 57 to 59 of the present report. Likewise, the Commission concludes that the State failed to meet its obligation to investigate under Article I.b of the IACFDP. C. Rights to humane treatment, private and family life, freedom of movement and residence, and obligation to provide special protection to children (Articles 5, 11, 19, and 22 in connection with Article 1.1. of the American Convention) 276. The right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, establishes that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 277. Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the American Convention indicate: “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.” 278. Article 19 of the American Convention provides that “[e]very minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” 279. Article 22.1 of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law.” 280. The case law of the Inter-American Court has established that the victims’ next of kin may, in turn, be affected by the violation of their right to mental and moral integrity.303 Thus, the Inter-American Court has considered the right of the victims’ next of kin to mental and moral integrity violated because of the additional suffering they have undergone as a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones304 and the acts or omissions by the State authorities in relation to the facts.305 281. The Commission notes that, in keeping with the Court’s case law, “in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin is a direct result, precisely, of this phenomenon, which causes them severe anguish owing to the act itself, which is increased, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim or to open an effective investigation to clarify what occurred.”306 303 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; Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 163. 304 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 September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 96; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 96. 305 I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 195. 306 I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 87; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 123; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 105.