36 176. In the case at hand, the Commission has concluded that the State did violate the right to life of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and the right to humane treatment of Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, and that, in addition, it did violate the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy of the deceased victims’ next-of-kin and of Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura through the absence of an adequate investigation conducted within a reasonable time after the incident. The Commission notes that although one person was convicted in 2008, and the families of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez Chávez, together with Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, received payment for moral redress, that did not take place in its entirety until almost three years after the judgment was handed down and 17 years after the incident itself. 177. Consequently, the Commission finds that these circumstances caused the next-of-kin 181 feelings of suffering, anguish, insecurity, frustration, and powerlessness vis-à-vis the state authorities, and it concludes that the State did violate Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the next-of-kin of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez Chávez and with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. V. CONCLUSIONS 178. Based on the legal and factual considerations set out above, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Republic of Peru is responsible for:     Violating the right to life enshrined in Article 4.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez Chávez. The Commission believes that since the competent courts convicted the perpetrator and enforced the payment of moral compensation to the families of the deceased victims, the violation was remedied in part. Violating the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. The Commission believes that since the competent courts convicted the perpetrator of the victim’s injuries and enforced the payment of moral compensation to the victim, the violation was remedied in part. Violating the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, with respect to the next-ofkin of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and of Norma Pérez Chávez, and with respect to Alberto Bejarano Laura. Violating the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the next-of-kin of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and of Norma Pérez Chávez, and with respect to Alberto Bejarano Laura. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 179. In consideration of the foregoing conclusions, and bearing in mind that a final criminal conviction has been handed down in the case and that the State has complied with the payment of moral redress imposed in the judgment of July 23, 2008, as a civilly responsible third party in the incident, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE PERUVIAN STATE: September 26, 2006, Series C No. 155, para. 96; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 22, 2006, Series C No. 153, para. 96. 180 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, para. 195. 181 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 160; I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 105; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of August 16, 2000, Series C No. 68, para. 128.