123. Thirdly, the Commission finds that it is sufficiently proven that there were protracted periods of procedural inactivity during the court case, which was annulled on at least one occasion, and that this inactivity has not been justified by the State. In this regard, the available evidence shows that after the charges were brought by the Ministry of Public Prosecution on June 13, 2003, the case entered the public oral trial stage, after almost four years had elapsed, that is, on January 18, 2007. The IACHR determined that during at least seven months, the case was suspended because of a recusal of the judge hearing the case, and the final decision on the appeal was issued almost two years after it was filed, that is, on April 1, 2009. After the filing of the cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, the Criminal Cassation Chamber took approximately two additional years until it handed down its ruling on December 14, 2011. Lastly, taking into account the available information as to whether the second proceedings have been completed or not as of the present date, the Commission finds as proven fact that the investigation and criminal proceedings have been stretched out unreasonably over time with no evidence of fact to justify any such delay. 124. Lastly, as to the actions of the family members, although the procedural impulse is the responsibility of the State, in any case the evidence in the case file shows that they have been actively involved over the course of the proceedings endeavoring to contribute to the elucidation of the incidents. 125. Based on the considerations put forth throughout this section, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligation set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the family members identified in the instant report. C. Right to humane treatment with respect to Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez’s relatives 126. Article 5.1 of the American Convention establishes that “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” With regard to the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations, the Inter-American Court has reiterated that such family members can, in turn, be considered victims.125 In this regard, the Court has considered that their right to mental and moral integrity can be infringed as a consequence of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and of subsequent acts or omissions of domestic authorities in relation to these events.126 127. In this case the Commission has concluded that Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez lost their life under circumstances in which state agents used lethal force unnecessarily and disproportionately without pursuing a legitimate aim and with no justification for such action. 128. In addition to these circumstances, which in and of themselves are a source of suffering and powerlessness, the Commission has further concluded herein that in this case there was no investigation conducted by due diligence. In this type of circumstances, the Court has written that: […] the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the determination of 125 IA Court of HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164. par. 102. See also: IACHR. Report No. 58/12. Case 12.606. Merits. Brothers Landaet Mejias. Venezuela. March 21, 2012, para. 256. 126 IA Court of HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 112; and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. par. 96. 30