222. Moreover, taking into account its analysis of the length of the investigations, the Commission finds that the State has committed a series of omissions that have resulted in more than two decades of unreasonable delays in the investigation from which no results have been forthcoming in terms of justice and truth, with the attendant difficulties caused by the passage of time in terms of obtaining evidence by which to clarify the facts and identify all those involved. 223. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State has not adopted the necessary measures to discharge its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish all those responsible for the human rights violations analyzed in this report within a reasonable time, in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the families of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. 224. Furthermore, under the iura novit curia principle and bearing in mind the same analysis of the lack of due diligence in the investigations, the Commission considers that by reason of the State's failure to investigate the disappearance and torture that Manuel Guillermo Omeara suffered after January 19, 1999, and April 12, 2005, when Colombia deposited its instruments of ratification of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, respectively, the State bears international responsibility for violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8, of the former Convention and Article I (b) of the latter treaty to the detriment of the family of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Carrascal. 225. The Commission finds that, as its analysis has included the arguments of the petitioners concerning their submissions as to the lack of truth with respect to the facts, it need not pronounce on the separate violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 4. Right to humane treatment, rights of the family, and freedom of movement and residence (Articles 5, 17, and 22 of the American Convention to the detriment of the family members) 226. Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides, “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected." The Inter-American Court has indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, become victims.250 Specifically, the Court found that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims [may be] violated based on the ... particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts.251 227. Article 22 of the American Convention protects the right of all persons lawfully within a State to move freely within that State and to choose their place of residence; and the right of such persons to enter, to remain in, or to leave the State’s territory without any unlawful interference.252 In addition, the [… continuation] Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 148; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, Judgment of November 25, 2003, pars. 217 and 218; and IACHR, Report No. 62/08 Manuel Cepeda Vargas, par. 140. 249I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 78; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, par. 62, and IACHR Report .No. 62/08 Manuel Cepeda Vargas, par. 140. 250I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, par. 102. 251I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 96. 252I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. T. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 138. 50