the Commission underlines that the reopening of the investigation in two opportunities has not activated the realization of procedures in order to correct the deficiencies of the investigation. On the contrary, since the reopening in 2008 and up to date, there is no information on the activity of the file besides the responses given by the Supreme Court of Justice in view of the requests of intervention on the part of the family members. 165. The Commission considers that in view of what has been indicated thus far, it is not necessary to analyze the fourth prong of the analysis regarding reasonable time related to the impact on the legal situation of the interested parties. Even so, the Commission notes that in such cases, the outcome of the criminal proceeding may impact prospects for reparation. 166. In conclusion, the Commission considers that the investigations carried out domestically did not satisfy the guarantee of reasonable time. 4.3 Conclusion 167. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Chile has not investigated the facts of the instant case with due diligence or within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State of Chile violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established at Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 5. The right to humane treatmente rspect the family members (Article 5 of the American Convention) 168. The right to humane treatment, concealed in article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected”. 169. 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. 146 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 ones 147 and the acts or omissions by the State authorities in relation to the facts.148 170. In the present case the Commission has established that the relatives of Mr. Poblete did not provide an informed consent, did not have minimum information not they had the option to make decisions regarding the procedures and treatments given to his beloved one. Moreover, the Commission determined that the State did not adopt all the measures that reasonably could have adopted to provide Mr. Poblete the intensive treatment that the doctors said he required. The Commission also established that the domestic investigations were not diligent nor permitted the elucidation of what happened to their relatives. Based on all these factors, jointly considered, the Commission considers that it can infer the harm to the moral integrity of the family members of Mr. 146 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. 147 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. 148 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. 33