166. The Flores Bedregal sisters were subjected to acts of intimidation. In her affidavit, Verónica Flores Bedregal stated that she "did not openly receive threats," but received telephone calls to [her] office summoning a Police District on the outskirts of the city with different absurd but frightening pretexts. She didn't show up, nor did she want to tell [her] family, but [her] co-workers witnessed [her] worry and fear." She also mentioned that the lawyers representing them were intimidated and threatened. She indicated that Olga Flores Bedregal was illegally arrested in the framework of a peaceful demonstration against forced disappearances. She also said that in 2010, after a mass in memory of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, dozens of police officers attacked people that were leaving the church, causing chaos in the crowd. In addition, in the statements given before a notary public by Verónica and Lilian Teresa Flores Bedregal, they indicated that the sisters suffered harassment and aggression by police officers. It also appears from the file that the Ombudsman's Office requested that measures be adopted to guarantee the safety of the Flores Bedregal sisters in the face of acts of harassment by State officials. Finally, in the public hearing before this Court, Olga Flores, referring to the State, declared that "[s]he would be satisfied if they did not continue its attack." 167. In the specific case, since the forced disappearance of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal has been established, and following this Court's case law, it is considered to have been proven that the personal integrity of Mr. Flores Bedregal's sisters has been affected, since this is a direct consequence of the disappearance of their relative. For the Court and in relation to the Flores Bedregal sisters, the following has been demonstrated: their emotional bond with Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal; their physical and emotional repercussions following his disappearance; their active role in judicial proceedings, in the search for the whereabouts and remains of their brother and in obtaining access to information from official sources, and in particular from the Armed Forces; the fact that they became the target of acts of harassment because of the persistent claim for the disappearance of their brother. After more than four decades, the lack of clarification of the disappearance has altered their mourning process, perpetuating the suffering and uncertainty. These effects will be projected over time as long as the factors of impunity and the lack of clarification of the final whereabouts of the disappeared victim persist. 214 As the Court has already established in its case law, the violation of the right to the truth about the fate of a disappeared person is a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for the close family. 215 168. Based on these considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Olga Beatriz, Eliana Isbelia, Verónica, and Lilian Teresa Flores Bedregal. VIII REPARATIONS 216 169. Based on the Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to adequately remedy it, and that this provision includes a customary norm that constitutes one 214 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 103, and Case Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 122. 215 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, supra, para. 114. 216 Article 64 of the American Convention. 50