certain human rights violations, the Court has determined that they can, in turn, be victims.423 In this regard, the Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims has been violated based on the additional suffering they have endured as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of State authorities in relation to the facts.424 310. According to the above, the Commission considers that the loss of a loved one in a context such as that described in the instant case, as well as the absence of a full and effective investigation, which in turn causes suffering and anguish of not knowing the truth, joined to the lack of a integral reparation, itself constitutes an affectation to the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims. 311. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention in relation to the duties established in its Article 1(1), to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims included in this report. For the purposes of this consideration, in application of the iura novit curia principle, the Commission notes that although in some of the relevant admissibility reports there was no mention of Article 5 of the Convention with regard to the next of kin, the facts that support the existence of such violation arise from the information and evidence submitted by the parties during the proceedings before the IACHR and which the State has had the opportunity to offer its observations. VI. CONCLUSIONS 312. The Commission considers that the International responsibility of the State of Colombia is aggravated in the instant case it relates to extrajudicial executions committed under a specific modus operandi that was proven in every case. Likewise, the Commission proved that in four of the cases the military criminal jurisdiction was applied and it became in most of the cases a critical obstacle that promoted the partial and total impunity in which these cases are situated. The Commission considers that the preponderance of the facts reveals a pattern of cover-ups that proceed from a fundamental misrepresentation of the acts of the perpetrators, the submission of the cases to a jurisdiction that lacks guarantees of independence and impartiality and continues with the absence of judicial clarification, and includes the stigmatization of the victims as ‘subversives’ or ‘rebels’, all with the aim of preventing the determination of the truth and the establishment of responsibilities. 313. In accordance with the legal and factual considerations set out in this report, the Commission concludes that Colombia is responsible for: a) The violation of the rights to life and privacy enshrined in Articles 4 and 11 of the American Convention in relation with its Article 1(1) to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán; b) The violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty and to privacy, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the American Convention in relation with its Article 1(1) to the detriment of Mr. Elio Gelves Carrillo; c) The violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty enshrined in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention in relation with its Article 1(1) to the detriment of Mr. Carlos Arturo Uva Velandia; 423 I/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, para. 112, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 102. 424 I/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, para. 112 and I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 96.