c) the representatives of the next of kin of the victims confuse the existence of a damage with its quantification, on the mistaken basis that for this it is sufficient that the State has been found responsible for the fact. This moral detriment is different from the finding by the Court that justice was delayed. Said representatives should have proven the existence of the damage and the causal link before requesting that the amount of the detriment be appraised. Therefore, the request for compensation for moral damage suffered by the next of kin of the victims, due to fear of imminence of a danger over 11 years, is also unconducive, because the existence of this damage has not been proven. The fear and anguish that the next of kin of the victims say they suffer allegedly derive from their struggle against impunity regarding the facts, which is not true because they have not participated in the proceedings. Considerations of the Court 53. The December 6, 2001 judgment found that Colombia breached Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the persons listed in operative paragraph four. Paragraphs 48 to 66 of that judgment analyze said violations. Reading these texts it can be seen that the main types of damage suffered can be classified in two groups, as follows: a) On the one hand, all the damage caused by deficiencies in processing of the judicial proceedings, their delays and the obstacles placed to hinder attainment of a prompt and adequate decision. In this regard, the references to the disciplinary proceedings and to the ordinary criminal proceedings in the judgment should be recalled.80 It should also be added that some members of the police altered, hid, and destroyed evidence. All this led the Court to state that there was a “situation of impunity.” The damage caused by this situation consists of the impossibility of punishing those truly responsible, which creates a feeling of defenselessness and anguish among the next of kin of the victims. b) On the other hand, there is the conduct of numerous members of the police force and other officials who distorted the truth of the facts, making it all appear to have been an attack by an armed subversive group. This led to the next of kin being deemed linked to the guerrilla forces. As a consequence thereof, some of them lost their jobs, their social and commercial relations; others were insulted, maltreated, and persecuted. 54. The next of kin of the victims may have suffered the above stated damage in one of the aforementioned categories or in both at the same time. All such damage must be duly redressed. But the Court must specify that the indemnifications granted are to repair the detriment caused. Therefore, those claiming reparation must, in general, demonstrate the damage suffered. If the damage is caused by the situation of impunity, they must certify the ties of the applicant with one of the victims and that lack of punishment has caused detriment to him or her. Likewise, those who have suffered insults or maltreatment, or who have lost their jobs due to their ties with a victim, must also prove the damage suffered for the reparation to be 80 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, supra note 20, paras. 49-56.