49 222. In relation to the relatives of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, the Commission wishes to emphasize that that the Inter-American Court has repeatedly stated that “the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may also be 216 victims.” 223. Specifically with respect to arbitrary and extrajudicial executions, the Court has stated that “no evidence is required to prove the grave impact on the mental and emotional well-being of the next of kin of the victims.”217 In light of the foregoing, in relation to the suffering and anguish suffered by the next of kin, and consistent with the jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system on this subject, the Commission considers that they were also victims of a violation of their personal integrity. 224. Moreover, the IACHR notes that the petitioners claimed that the State is responsible for the violation of the personal integrity of the victims’ next of kin. They asserted that those individuals had suffered intensely due to the execution of their relatives. Moreover, the State did not notify them of the transfer of the bodies, or their burial; it also did not notify them about the results of the autopsies performed on the victims’ bodies or the causes and circumstances of their death. They added that the deaths were not investigated until the next of kin lodged a criminal complaint. Subsequently, the families have had to face the slow pace of the process, attempts to cover-up the deaths and the lack of due diligence on the part of the civilian and military judicial authorities. The state did not submit any observations in this regard. 225. Moreover, the Commission observes that the mortal remains of the executed victims were buried as NN (with the exception of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez). The IACHR takes note of the representatives’ claim that the victims were buried without identifying them or notifying their next of kin. The State does not contest these facts in its pleadings. In this regard, the IACHR considers that the case file does not contain elements that would indicate that the executed victims were handed over to their next of kin so that the latter could dispose of their remains. In virtue of the foregoing, and assuming that they were not, in fact, handed over to the families, the Commission finds that this circumstance constitutes additional suffering for the next of kin, who were denied the ability to bury them in the place of their choosing and in keeping with their beliefs. 226. Finally, as noted earlier, the State is responsible for neglecting to seriously investigate the arbitrary and extrajudicial killings of the aforementioned victims and because of this, the facts have gone unpunished. In relation to this, the Court has established that the lack of effective remedies constitutes a 218 source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims’ next of kin who, in the instant case, still have not seen justice done nearly fourteen years after the events. 227. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty to the detriment of the next of kin of the executed victims, namely Florentín Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza, Jenifer Solange Peceros Quispe, Herma Luz Cueva Torres, Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña and Lucinda Rojas Landa. V. CONCLUSIONS 216 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Castillo Páez. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 88. See also Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 154. 217 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 262. See also Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 146. 218 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 104; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 261. See also, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 145; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 94.