49 custody at Yanamayo Prison and, consequently, failed in its duty of refraining from any act or practice of violence against women. 229. For all the foregoing, the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the right enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará with respect to Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales. 5. Right to integrity of Gladys Carol Espinoza’s next-of-kin 230. The Inter-American Court has stated that under the general obligation of states parties to respect and ensure the rights of all individuals subject to their jurisdiction, set out in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, the State has the duty of starting, immediately and on its own initiative, an effective investigation to identify, prosecute, and punish the guilty when a complaint has been made or good reason exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. In the case at hand, as has already been seen, the State did not act in accordance with 222 those precepts. 231. Article 5.1 of the American Convention stipulates that “every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” Based on international human rights case law, under certain circumstances, the anguish and suffering imposed on the close relatives of the victims of serious 223 human rights violations also constitute a violation of the right of those persons to humane treatment. Among the elements to be considered are the existence of close family ties, the particular circumstances of the bond with the victim, the way in which the family witnessed the violations or was involved in the quest for justice, in light of the subsequent actions or omissions of the state authorities in connection with 224 the facts. 232. In the case at hand, it has been established that upon learning of her daughter’s arrest, Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza went to the DINCOTE’s offices on several occasions but was never given any kind of answer. Following the intervention of the director of that police division, Ms. Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza and one of her children were authorized to visit Gladys Carol Espinoza for the space of a few minutes, on which occasion she broke down and fainted upon seeing her daughter’s physical condition. The Commission finds that the right to humane treatment of Gladys Carol Espinoza’s next-of-kin was affected as a consequence of their actions in reporting the torture and rape suffered by the victim between April and May 1993 and by the failure of the judicial authorities to take any action in connection with those allegations. The IACHR notes that Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza died in the year 2004, without having obtained any kind of response to the accusations of torture she presented on behalf of her daughter on and after April 26, 1993. 233. Finally, it has been established that under the penal regime provided for in Article 20 of Decree Law No. 25475 and, particularly, during the time Gladys Carol Espinoza was held at Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison in the department of Puno, her family was prevented from visiting her for several years. 234. In consideration whereof, the Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating Article 5.1. of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the victim’s mother, Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza, and her siblings Marlene, Mirian, and Manuel Espinoza Gonzales, through the repercussions of its failure to provide a judicial response to the torture and rape suffered by Gladys Carol Espinoza, and through the visiting restrictions 222 I/A Court H. R., Case of Tibi, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, para. 159. 223 224 IACHR, Report No. 53/01 (Merits), Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez (Mexico), April 4, 2001. I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 335; Case of Servellón García et al., Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, para. 128; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of February 22, 2002, Series C No. 91, para. 163.