90. The Court has repeatedly considered that, in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to the mental and moral integrity of the victim’s family members is a direct consequence of this phenomenon, which causes them severe suffering for the event itself that is increased, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation to clarify what occurred. This distress leads to a presumption of harm to the mental and moral integrity of the family members. In previous cases, the Court has established that such a presumption is established juris tantum with respect to parents, children, spouses, permanent companions and siblings as long as they correspond to the specific circumstances of the case.89 91. In this case, the State recognized its responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the family members of Mr. Garzón Guzmán identified in the Merits Report. Some of the statements made before the Court allow it to note that those persons have endured uncertainty, suffering and anguish in detriment to their mental and moral integrity due to the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán and the actions of the State authorities. 92. Specifically, the Court finds that the mother of Mr. Garzón Guzmán was revictimized while she was searching for her son. Thus, according to her statement in the public hearing before the Court, her protest in front of the Palace of Government: “sometimes they were pacific, other times they were rather unpleasant because they broke the placards, each of us left with a placard of their disappeared person, they broke the placards, they used tear gas, sometimes they forced us from the Palace of Government, we had to go a block away.” According to the statement of her son, Iván Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán, Clorinda Guzmán participated in these manifestations until approximately 2010.90 In those activities, only Mrs. Guzmán participated “since she feared for the security of the other members of her family.”91 93. Thus, in addition to the uncertainty, suffering and anguish of the next of kin of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, his mother endured specific forms of revictimization when she was searching for her son and for the lack of a differential focus in the search. 94. In view of the above, the Court finds that the State violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Julio Garzón, Clorinda Guzmán de Garzón, Luis Alberto Garzón Guzmán, Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán, Luis Lascano and Ana Julia Lascano, as next of kin of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. IX REPARATIONS 95. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.92 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114 and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 217. 89 90 Affidavit of Iván Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán (evidence file, folio 4563). 91 Affidavit of Iván Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán (evidence file, folio 4565). 92 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguezvs. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C 23