State violated the obligation to ensure the rights established in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 107 persons deprived of liberty who lost their life (Annex A). In addition, the State violated Article 5(4), in relation to Article 1(1), both of the American Convention, to the detriment of the 22 individualized inmates who died and who were in pre-trial detention in cell No. 19 together with those who had been sentenced and convicted. C. The next of kin of the deceased 70. The facts of the case reveal different effects suffered by the next of kin of the deceased victims. In this regard, it was proved that the identification of the corpses took several days and that various errors were made in the delivery of the bodies, which exacerbated the suffering of the next of kin (supra paras. 51 and 52). 71. In this regard, during the public hearing, María Oneyda Estrada Aguilar stated that: “[Her son] had been taken to the morgue, where [they] looked at the decomposing bodies, because a refrigerated truck had broken down and when they pulled the bodies out they had begun to decompose. [They] stayed there in the sun, without eating, without drinking water, without sleeping, […] what [they] wanted was to find [their] son’s body. But it was difficult because it was not there, someone else had taken it. A week later […] they delivered it, because [previously] they had given it to another person by mistake, [and they tried] to deliver the [corpse of another person] to [her, but she] told them that it was not [her] son; [however,] the forensic doctor [told her] take it, you will be doing it a favor; [she refused and indicated that she would] prefer to close [her] son’s grave imagining he was inside rather than place someone there who was not part of [her] family. [Subsequently, her son] appeared; the family that had taken him [returned him]; and they gave him to [her]. The impact was [stronger] when [they] buried him. No one gave them any kind of support; [she] thought [she] would go mad, and even take [her] own life.” 72. For her part, Sandra Lorena Ramos Cárcamo indicated that: [When her husband was] imprisoned owing to the anti-maras law, [she and her three daughters] always supported him. [The] week [of the fire], [her husband had told [her …] that they had turned off the water. [The day before the fire, she] was in the line [to visit her spouse] when a prison police officer told [her that the inmates of Cell No. 19 were [not people; [she] respond[ed] that everyone was a person and that just as the agents had a heart so did the inmates. Then [the police agent] told [her that she] was punished [and she] went home. [The day of the fire] when they presented the list of the deceased, he did not appear [on it, so she] thought he was alive; had the hope he would be alive and that he would be all right and that [she] would go home with this news [However, he had died;] the pain was so great that [she even] attempted to take [her] life, […] but [her] daughters gave [her] strength. 73. In this regard, the Court has established that the right of the next of kin of the victims to know where the remains of their loved ones are, in addition to a requirement of the right to know the truth, is a measure of reparation; therefore it gives rise to the corresponding obligation of the State to satisfy this reasonable expectation. It was extremely important for the next of kin to receive the bodies of those who died in the fire, and to be able to bury them according to their beliefs, and obtain closure for the mourning process they experienced as a result of the events.78 Specifically, international standards 78 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211 para. 245, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 258. 22