58 Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) and Article 2 thereof, to the detriment of Luis Antonio Galindo. F. Right to humane treatment (Article 5 and Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) of the victim’s next of kin. 260. Article 5(1) of the American Convention, which recognizes the right to personal integrity, provides that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” The Commission has observed the following in this regard: Among the fundamental principles upon which the American Convention is grounded is the recognition that the rights and freedoms protected thereunder are derived from the attributes of their human personality. From this principle flows the basic requirement underlying the Convention as a whole, and Article 5 in 207 particular, that individuals be treated with dignity and respect. 261. The case law of the Inter-American Court is that the next of kin of victims may be victims of 208 violations of their right to mental and moral integrity. The Inter-American Court has reasoned that the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin is violated based on the additional suffering they have 209 undergone as a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations committed against their loved ones 210 and based on the subsequent actions or omissions of state authorities regarding these facts. 262. The petitioner states that when the President of the Republic publicly labeled Mr. Galindo a repentant terrorist, in violation of the terrorism legislation, Mr. Galindo’s physical and personal integrity was imperiled, he was exposed to harassment from various sectors of the government and his professional work as an attorney was adversely affected. The petitioner alleges that this did severe moral injury to Mr. Galindo and his family, especially his wife and eldest child, who was ten years old at the time of the events. The petitioner states that as a consequence of being branded a subversive criminal by the State, his professional associations were cut off and he was forced to sell his home, his car and his wife’s business, change his son to a different school and get him psychological treatment. 263. The Commission notes that as a consequence of his detention on October 16, 1994, Magistrate Galindo Cárdenas tendered his resignation from his position as a magistrate on the Huánuco-Pasco Superior Court on October 20, 1994. It has also been established that on November 21, 1994, Mr. Galindo requested personal guarantees from the Minister of the Interior, both for himself and his family members and that on January 16, 1995, he applied to the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation requesting that he be granted personal guarantees inasmuch as the Head of the Huánuco Military-Political Command and officials from the Public Prosecutor’s Office who participated in the investigation to which he was subjected had threatened him that they could throw him back in jail on the same grounds. The Commission has not been informed whether the authorities had answered or taken any measures in this regard. 264. In its Final Report, Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission states that: “In addition to the death and disappearance of loved ones, there are other losses that, although not irreparable, have painful effects, 207 IACHR. Report No. 38/00, Case 11.743, Merits, Rudolph Baptiste, Grenada, April 13, 2000, paragraph 89. 208 I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paragraph 101; Case of the Dos Errers Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, paragraph 206, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraph 163. 209 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 335; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 153, paragraph 96. 210 I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paragraph 195.