statements; nonetheless, there is no record in the case file that the State adopted any measure to investigate these new elements. 142. Based on the above, the Commission considers that after 26 years of the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, the State has not investigated the facts of the present case with due diligence and neither in a reasonable time. The Commission considers that in the circumstances of the present case, given that the State did not present any justification, it does not need to proceed to analyze said period in light of the elements mentioned above. 143. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument, in prejudice of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán, as well as his family in accordance to paragraph 65 of the present report. Likewise, the Commission concludes that the State did not fulfil its duty to investigate, derived from Article I(b) of the IACFDP. C. Rights to Humane Treatment (Articles 5 and 11 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 144. The right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, provides that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 145. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court has established that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims of violations to their mental and moral integrity.108 Therefore, the Inter-American Court has considered the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin to be violated on the grounds of the additional suffering they have experienced as a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones,109 and based on the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities regarding these facts.110 146. The Commission notes that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court, “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.”111 147. In the present case, the Commission considers that the sole fact of the forced disappearance of the victim has generated a profound feeling of pain, anguish and uncertainty among the victim’s next of kin, which has become more profound because of the lack of an effective and diligent investigation in a reasonable time. 108 I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 101; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No 186, para. 163. 109 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; Case of Goiburú et al v. Paraguay. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 96. 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 195. 111 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. 25