151. Secondly, with regard to the outcome of the amparo proceeding, the Commission notes that on January 23, 2003, the Constitutional Court denied the claim for relief on the grounds that the offense charged therein had ceased because of the agreements that were reached at a meeting on October 30, 2002 between the President of the Republic at the time and some of the claimant organizations. The IACHR notes that at said meeting, it was agreed to authorize a special budget outlay of five hundred thousand quetzals, which based on the claims of the petitioners and the State, was used to temporarily cover the antiretroviral medicine of eighty persons with HIV/AIDS, and did not include the victims in the instant case. 152. The Commission finds that the victims resorted to the Constitutional Court to seek effective judicial protection of their right to life, humane treatment and health, recognized in international instruments as well as in the domestic laws of Guatemala. The IACHR regards the substantive content of the Constitutional Court’s ruling to be inconsistent with standards on the right to judicial protection, because the Constitutional Court failed to rule on the merits of the matter and justified its denial of the amparo claim, based on a measure adopted by the Government that was of a temporary and special nature and did not focus on the general situation, which was the subject of the claim. The Commission also notes that the Ombudsman for Human Rights requested the Constitutional Court to address the claim as soon as possible inasmuch as “the lives of each of the persons living with HIV/AIDS depends on it.” 153. The Commission emphasizes that the foregoing considerations do not constitute a mere abstraction. On the contrary, a prompt and effective resolution of the amparo suit in favor of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala could have concrete effects on the victims in the case. At least three of the deceased victims died not long before the filing and ruling on said remedy, as pointed out earlier in this report, without having received any comprehensive treatment from the State.133 154. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Guatemala violated the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the victims of the instant case, except for Alberto Quiché Cuvexa, who passed away prior to the filing and resolution of the amparo claim. 3. Right to humane treatment with regard to the next-of-kin of the deceased and surviving victims (Article 5 of the American Convention) 155. The right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, establishes that “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 156. Under the legal precedents of the Inter-American Court, the next of kin of the victims may, in turn, be affected by the violation of their right to mental and moral integrity.134 Accordingly, the InterAmerican Court has considered the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin violated based on the additional suffering they have undergone as a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones135 and based on the subsequent actions or omissions of state authorities regarding these facts.136 133 Facundo Gómez Reyes, Alberto Quiché Cuxeva and Rita Dubón Orozco. IA Court of HR. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 101; Case of the Massacre of las Dos Erres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, par. 206 and Case Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 163. 134 135 IA Court of HR. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 335; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155. par. 96; and Case of Goiburú et al v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, par. 96. 136 IA Court of HR. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, par. 195. 37