32 obligations to respect and ensure established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of these 22 victims named above. 2. With respect to the victims’ next of kin 100. The Court has repeatedly held that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. 83 The Court has deemed that the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin has been violated by “the additional suffering experienced as a result of the specific circumstances surrounding the violations committed against their loved ones and of the subsequent acts or omissions by State authorities with respect to the incidents at issue.” 84 The Court has also written that: [T]his Court has held that it can declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims of certain violations of human rights applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses, and life partners (hereinafter “direct relatives”), as long as this responds to the specific circumstances of the case. In the case of those direct relatives, it is the State who shall invalidate said presumption. 85 101. In the instant case, the Inter-American Commission observes that the relatives of the 107 victims have endured the suffering that attends a violation of the right to life. Their loved ones died a violent death, as they either choked to death or were burned to death in a fire that was, in the final analysis, the result of the State’s gross negligence. The next of kin have suffered because of their loved ones’ death; but they have also suffered because of what they endured during and in the wake of the May 17, 2004 fire. The victims’ next of kin had to wait hours for the lists of the deceased, wounded and survivors to be released; then they had to wait for several days as the process of identifying and claiming the bodies in the morgue progressed. Ultimately, they had to endure a sequence of procedures that are typical of a catastrophic experience. 102. The next of kin of the deceased have had their rights as victims violated, given the authorities’ failure to take measures to clarify the facts and hold anyone criminally or administratively responsible for the fire that claimed the lives of the 107 victims in the present case. The victims’ next of kin have endured a sense of frustration and powerlessness in seeing that no one is being made to answer for this serious event. In other words, they have had to live with the sense that justice has not been done. 103. The Inter-American Commission considers that the victims’ next of kin have suffered because of the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that the victims received while inmates in Cellblock 19; 86 in some cases, this was degrading treatment that they experienced 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paragraph 96; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paragraph 156; and I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraph 119. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paragraph 60; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraphs 144 and 146. 84 85 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paragraph 162; I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 119; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, paragraph 128. 86 Here, the Inter-American Court has held that deprivation of liberty in conditions unbefitting human dignity can be a violation of right to humane treatment of the next of kin of the person deprived of liberty. See: I/A Court H.R., Case of