actions affects the normal development of daily life and causes great tumult and perturbation to the person subject to legal proceedings and to his family,228 the severity of which is verified by the person's uncertainty about his future.229 133. Taking into account its conclusions regarding the way in which the two criminal proceedings and the civil suit were instituted and pursued as mechanisms for intimidation and harassment against Mrs. Acosta's work in defense of human rights as well as her search for justice for her husband's murder, the Commission also concludes that the State violated her right to respect for her mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of that instrument. C. Right to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the American Convention) in connection with Article 1(1) with respect to María Luisa Acosta and other of Mr. Garcia Valle’s relatives 134. Article 5(1) of the American Convention, “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.230 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.231 135. The Commission has already concluded in this report that a thorough and effective investigation of the facts was not conducted. In this regard, the Court has held: The absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the determination of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their corresponding responsibilities.232 136. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that the loss of a loved one in circumstances such as those described in this case, as well as the lack of a thorough and effective investigation which in turn causes pain and anguish if the truth is not revealed, in themselves constitute harm to the mental and moral integrity of the members of García Valle's family. 228IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 66, December 31, 2011, par. 120. Available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/defenders/docs/pdf/defenders2011.pdf IACHR, Report on Merits No. 43/96, Case 11.430, José Francisco Gallardo (Mexico), October 15, 1996, par. 79. 229IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 66, December 31, 2011, par. 120. Available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/defenders/docs/pdf/defenders2011.pdf IACHR, Report on Merits No. 43/96, Case 11.430, José Francisco Gallardo (Mexico), October 15, 1996, par. 79. 230I/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. 231I/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. 232I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 102. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par. 195; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, par. 181; I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C, No. 168, par. 102.