-35146. The Court has also held that, in cases in which the circumstances do not indicate a serious human rights violation under its case law, the infringement of the right to personal integrity of the family members, as regards the pain and suffering that occurred, must be proved.133 In the present case, the suffering of the family members of the alleged victims, claimed by the Commission and the representatives, must be proved to find, if applicable, a violation of the right to personal integrity of the family members as a violation distinct from the alleged violation of other rights. 147. The Court notes that the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives on the sufferings of the family members of the alleged victims refer, as a cause of such suffering distinct from the death and injuries to the alleged victims, to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. With regard to the case against Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo, the Court notes that there was not sufficient evidence to establish the additional suffering of the family members. 148. Consequently, the Court holds that the State did not violate Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the family members of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta, Ms. Pérez Chávez and to that of Mr. Bejarano Laura due to the prolongation of the criminal proceedings against Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo. 149. The Court refers to its prior considerations in which it indicated that it would not rule on the alleged violation of the rights to life and personal integrity (supra paras. 133 to 139) and that, for the reasons explained in those paragraphs, it will not rule on the suffering caused to the family members by the death and injuries of the alleged victims. VIII-4. DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS TO LIFE AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY, AS WELL AS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION (Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 150. The Commission referred to the incompatibility of the amnesty law with the Convention during its examination of the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25.134 In its final written observations, it argued that the State did not provide information on the “special measures of prevention on the use of arbitrary force” and that, at the moment of the incident, there existed “a lack of a normative framework and of practices and training […] that govern the use of force” of State agents, in violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 151. The representatives maintained that the State did not comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, during the period in which the amnesty law had a legal effect. They also argued that domestic legislation to “determine the correct use of public force” did not exist when the incident of the present case occurred. They added that the use of public force by the Armed Forces is now governed by Legislative Decree Nº 1095 of 2009, whose “compatibility with the Politicial Constitution of Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 232 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 203. 133 The Commission argued that the violation of the rights of judicial guarantees and of judicial protection recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention should be read in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 134