50 characteristics of the operations involved in this case are consistent with the statements of the survivors and the findings of the exhumations conducted to date. 265. In fact, several of the dwellings in El Mozote, La Joya, Ranchería, Los Toriles, Jocote Amarillo and Cerro Pando were burned to the ground by the same soldiers who perpetrated the massacre. In El Mozote, the walls of several properties were knocked down, and the bodies were left in the midst of the ruins. In some places the soldiers stripped the victims of the belongings they had with them or those found in their homes. As well, several survivors declared that, upon returning from their hiding place to look for their relatives, they found the dead carcasses of the animals that had been their means of subsistence. The Commission considers that these acts constitute an additional violation of the right to property, enshrined in article 21.1 and 21.2, in relation to the obligations established in article 1.1, to the detriment of the victims executed, who were stripped of their property, and also of the survivors who lived in the villages and cantons where the massacres were committed and whose homes were destroyed or their means of subsistence stolen or eliminated. F. The right to humane treatment (article 5.1 of the American Convention in relation to article 1.1 thereof) for the relatives and survivors 266. Article 5.1 of the American Convention provides: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 267. Article 1.1 of the American Convention indicates: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 268. The Commission recalls that the Inter-American Court has repeatedly stated that the next of 283 kin of victims of human rights violations may themselves be victims . In cases involving massacres, the Court has held that it is not necessary to prove the mental anguish caused to the relatives of the victims 284 executed . In specific reference to forced disappearances, the Court has held that: (...) the violation of those relatives’ mental and moral integrity is a direct consequence of [the] forced disappearance. The circumstances of such disappearances generate suffering and anguish, in addition to a sense of insecurity, frustration and impotence in the face of the public authorities’ 285 failure to investigate. 269. According to the facts that the Commission has taken as proven, in the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places several of those who survived were next of kin of the victims executed. The Commission notes that, by the order and manner in which the massacres were committed, the number of surviving relatives varies substantially between El Mozote and the other places. Thus, in the village of El Mozote the only survivor was Mrs. Rufina Amaya. According to various statements, because of the rumors of a massacre in El Mozote and the radio news broadcasts to the effect that the Atlacatl Battalion would be conducting a large-scale operation in the area, several persons who found themselves in La Joya, Ranchería, Los Toriles, Jocote Amarillo and Cerro Pando decided to flee in advance of the Army’s arrival. This explains why in the other massacres the number of survivors was greater in comparison to El 283 I-A Court. Castillo Páez vs. Peru. Judgment of 27 November 1998. Series C No. 43, Para. 88. See also I-A Court. Masacre de Pueblo Bello vs. ColombiaJudgment of 31 January 2006. Series C No. 140, Para. 154. 284 I-A Court, Masacres de Ituango vs. Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006. Series C No. 148, Para. 262. See also I-A Court, Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, Para. 146 285 I-A Court, Blake vs. Guatemala. Judgment of 24 January 1998, Para. 114