fails adequately to investigate the violation, or refuses to supply the relatives with information on it.547 3.3.7 Extradition and expulsion Article 22(8) of the ACHR provides: “In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.” 3 The Inter-american Regional System It is not clear how close the relationship must be with the primary victim for the Court to find a distinct violation. “[C]lose ties to the victims” must be demonstrated, so, in the past, parents have normally qualified.548 In La Cantuta v Peru, the Court found violations in regard of family members with whom the victims had lived prior to their deaths, or who had taken an active role in searching for them, but found that some siblings of the victims had not shown sufficient evidence of actual damage.549 Nonetheless, in Moiwana Community v Suriname, the Court found a violation in respect of the direct victims’ entire community.550 In that case, thirty-nine community members had been killed in a military operation, survivors had abandoned the village, and thus been unable to bury the dead according to their traditions, and the State had failed to conduct an investigation or punish those responsible. Given that this case was decided prior to La Cantuta v Peru, it seems likely that the extension of the group of indirect victims beyond the immediate family of the primary victims will apply only to similarly extensive violations. Article 13 of the IACPPT provides in part: “Extradition shall not be granted nor shall the person sought be returned when there are grounds to believe that his life is in danger, that he will be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or that he will be tried by special or ad hoc courts in the requesting State.” Castillo-Páez v Peru, op. cit., §59; Servellón-García v Honduras (2006), op. cit., §§126–128; Baldeón-García v Peru (2006), op. cit., §129; Goiburú and Others v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §102. 547 See, for example, Vargas Areco v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §95; La Cantuta v Peru (2006), op. cit., §123; Goiburú and Others v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §97; Ituango Massacres v Colombia (2006), op. cit., §340; Gómez-Palomino v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 136, judgement of 22 November 2005, §61. 548 19 Tradesmen v Colombia (2004), op. cit., §218. 549 La Cantuta v Peru (2006), op. cit., §128. 550 Moiwana Community v Suriname (2005), op. cit., §§94–100. 121