D. Analysis of the right to life, liberty and personal security (Article I) and the right to protection for mothers and children (Article VII) of the American Declaration, and the right to personal integrity (Article 5.1) of the American Convention 241. Article I of the Declaration recognizes the right of every person to personal integrity. Article 5.1 of the American Convention states that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” Regarding the next of kin of the victims of certain human rights violations, the Court has indicated that they may be considered, in turn, victims themselves. 370 Article VII of the same instrument states that “[…] all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.” 242. The Court has repeatedly stated that the next of kin of the victims of certain human rights violations can be, in turn, victims themselves.371 Specifically, the Court has considered that the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims can be affected as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the domestic authorities in relation to these facts.372 Also, the Court has stated that “[t]he obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that the State must adopt to guarantee the rights established in the Convention. Additionally, the State must, if possible, try to reestablish a right that has been violated and, if applicable, repair the damage produced by human rights violations”. 373 In this regard, the Court has stated that a lack of effective remedies is a source of additional suffering and anguish for the relatives of the victims. 243. The consequences of violence and impunity may have a particularly detrimental effect on the relatives of the victims who are minors. In this regard, the Court observed in the case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre that the children relatives of the victims, “[h]ave suffered infringements to their physical and psychological health, particularly from the prolonged lack of justice and impunity in the instant case, and that said experiences have affected their social […] relations, altered their family dynamics”.374 244. Also, the Court has determined that it can presume a harm to the right to mental and moral integrity of direct family members of victims of certain violations of human rights by applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, and permanent companions, when and if they correspond to the specific circumstances of the case. In the case of said direct family members, it corresponds to the State to disprove said presumption. 375 245. The Commission notes that, as has been discussed, the State is responsible for the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of the journalist, for the dissemination of false information about the circumstances of his death and for failing to investigate with due diligence this crime, set in systematic patterns of human rights violations. These facts have seriously affected the mental and moral integrity of the relatives identified of the instant case. 370 Corte I.D.H., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Serie C No. 167. para. 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Serie C. No. 164. para. 102. 371 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Serie C No. 167. Para. 112; I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Serie C. No. 164. Para. 102. 372 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Serie C No. 167. Para. 112; I/A Court H.R. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Serie C No. 155. Para. 96. 373 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Serie C No. 192. Para. 98; I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Serie C No. 4. Para. 166; I/A Court H.R. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Serie C No. 186. Para. 142; I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Serie C No. 168. Para. 99. 374 I/A Court H.R., Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Serie C No. 211, par. 215. 375 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Serie C No. 219, para. 235. 53