agents and to this day the State has still not determined their whereabouts. The universe of evidence in the record shows that those forced disappearances were framed by a context of violence and persecution of the population considered inclined toward subversion. Such actions are especially serious, bearing in mind that, as the Court has held, forced disappearance in Guatemala constituted a practice of the State during the time of the internal armed conflict.172 70. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty recognized at Articles 3, 4 (1), 5 (1), 5 (2), and 7 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 (1) thereof, to the detriment of the three disappeared persons who were last seen in the custody of the State. The Commission also finds that the State violated Article I of the IAFDP, to the detriment of that same group of victims. C. The ensuing violations connected with the events of the massacre 71. The established facts show that the individuals who managed to survive the massacre suffered a series of consequences that adversely affected their lives and continue to do so to this day. What follows is an analysis of the rights recognized in the Convention that were violated to the detriment of the survivors of the massacre. 1. Right to humane treatment, rights of the family, 173 and rights of the child 72. The organs of the inter-American system have consistently held that the relatives of victims of certain gross human rights violations may, in turn, be victims of violations of their personal integrity.174 Moreover, in cases concerning massacres, the Court has found that no evidence is needed to prove the severe effects on the mental and emotional integrity of the next of kin of victims who have been executed.175 Specifically in relation to the suffering of the relatives of victims of forced disappearance, the Court has determined: [T]he violation of [the] relatives' mental and moral integrity is a direct consequence of [the] forced disappearance. The circumstances of such disappearances generate suffering and anguish, in addition to a sense of insecurity, frustration and impotence in the face of the public authorities' failure to investigate. 176 73. By the same token, the Court has determined on multiple occasions that the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin should be considered “violated, due to the additional suffering and pain that they have endured because of the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities regarding the facts, and due to the lack of effective remedies.”177 Indeed, “the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible.”178 In this case, as can be seen in detail in the analysis below of the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, no meaningful and impartial investigation of the facts was initiated ex officio and without delay, nor has there been a thorough investigation to uncover the truth of what happened or an effective judicial proceeding to identify and punish those responsible. 74. In keeping with the foregoing, with regard to the pain and anguish that the relatives of victims of massacres and forced disappearance have suffered and continue to suffer, the Commission considers that they, I/A Court H.R., Tiu Tojín Judgment, par. 49; I/A Court H.R., Chitay Nech Judgment, par. 67; I/A Court H.R., Río Negro Massacres Judgment, par. 117 and footnote 56; I/A Court H.R., García and Family Judgment, par. 54; I/A Court H.R., Molina Theissen Judgment, par. 40.1. 173 The pertinent portions of Article 17 of the American Convention provide: “Article 17. Rights of the Family. 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” 174 I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 206. 175 I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 206; I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment, par. 146; I/A Court H.R., Ituango Massacres Judgment, par. 262. 176 I/A Court H.R., Blake Judgment, par. 114. 177 I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 206; 178 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C. No. 192 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Valle Jaramillo Judgment"), par. 102. See also I/A Court H.R., Ituango Massacres Judgment, par. 261; I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment, par. 145. 172 20