49 responsibility, which is consistent with the prosecutor’s indictment of the officers for the crime of murder. The State, with all the resources available to it for doing so, has failed to provide a definitive judicial response regarding what happened in order to dispute the presumption of direct responsibility. 255. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Venezuela is responsible for violating the duty to respect and guarantee the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Articles 19 and 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías. F. The right to humane treatment with respect to the relatives of the Landaeta Mejías brothers 256. As the Inter-American Court has stated, the next of kin of the victims of certain human 283 rights violations may, in turn, be victims. Specifically, the Court has held that the relatives of victims may be mentally and morally affected as a result of the specific situation endured by their loved one, and 284 the subsequent actions or omissions on the part of domestic authorities with respect to these facts. 257. The Commission believes that in this case the next of kin of the Landaeta Mejías brothers endured profound suffering due to the threats against and subsequent extrajudicial execution of Igmar Alexander and Eduardo José, events that happened one and a half months apart. The Commission also emphasizes the anguish they must have felt when they anticipated the fate of Eduardo José once he had been arrested and held incommunicado, considering the earlier threats and the death of his brother. 258. This suffering has increased over the years since then, in that despite the tireless search for justice and constant judicial activity driving the domestic proceedings, both deaths continue to go unpunished. In summary, to date the relatives of the Landaeta Mejías brothers still do not know the truth of what happened to Igmar Alexander and Eduardo José, which keeps their family members in a constant state of frustration, sadness, and impotence. 259. In the Commission’s view, the manner in which the facts of this case occurred, as well as the situation of impunity surrounding the case, caused deep suffering and a radical change in the lives of relatives of the Landaeta Mejías brothers. Based on the information in the file, the Commission has been able to identify the following relatives: María Magdalena Mejías (mother), Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz (father), Victoria Eneri and Leydis Rossimar, both with the surname Landaeta Galindo (sisters), Francy Yelut Parra Guzmán (life partner of Igmar Alexander Landateta Mejías), and Johanyelis Alejandra Parra (daughter of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías). As a result, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of these persons. G. 285 286 The rights to a fair trial and judicial protection with respect to the investigations and proceedings initiated due to the death of the Landaeta Mejías brothers 283 I/A Court HR. Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru Case. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 112; I/A Court HR., Bueno Alves Case. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 164. para. 102. 284 I/A Court HR. Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru Case. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 112; I/A Court HR., Vargas Areco Case. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155. para. 103. para. 96. 285 Article 8.1 of the American Convention states: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 286 Article 25.1 of the American Convention establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by Continues…