5. Right to humane treatment of the families of the victims (Articles 5(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) 167. The right to integrity of the person is enshrined in Article 5(5.1) of the American Convention, which provides “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” In that regard, the Commission has recognized that: Among the fundamental principles upon which the American Convention is grounded is the recognition that the rights and freedoms protected thereunder are derived from the attributes of their human personality. From this principle flows the basic requirement underlying the Convention as a whole, and Article 5 in particular, that individuals be treated with dignity and respect.164 168. The case-law 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 abridgment of the right to mental and moral integrity.165 Thus, the Inter-American Court has considered that the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin has been violated “in light of the additional suffering experienced as a result of the specific circumstances surrounding the violations committed against their loved ones166 and of the subsequent acts or omissions by State authorities with respect to the incidents at issue.”167 169. The Commission notes that, pursuant to the Court's case law, in cases of forced disappearance, the Court has held that 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 exacerbated, 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.168 170. Consequently, and given that, in view of the forced disappearance of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand, the State had an obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of the family members also by conducting effective investigations, the absence of effective remedies constituted an additional source of suffering and anguish on their part. 171. In addition to the presumption that the personal integrity of family members of a victim of forced disappearance are impaired, in the instant case it has been shown that Mrs. María Esther Gomero de 164 IACHR. Report No. 38/00, Case 11.743, Merits, Rudolph Baptiste, Grenada, April 13, 2000, paragraph 89, posted at:www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99span/De%20Fondo/Grenada11743.htm. 165 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, paragraph 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, paragraph 206 and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v.. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraph 163. 166 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, paragraph 335 and Case of Vargas Areco v.. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, paragraph 96; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paragraph 96. 167 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, paragraph 195. 168 I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of 24 January 1998 Series C No. 36, paragraph 114; Case of Ticona Estrada v.. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, paragraph 87; Case of La Cantuta v.. Peru Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paragraph 123 and Case of Anzualdo Castro v.. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, paragraph 105. 39