further considerations in this regard. 383 Nevertheless, the Court recalls that the State has a positive obligation to ensure access to information and to public archives under the principle of good faith and maximum disclosure. 384 VII-3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY (Article 5(1) 385 of the American Convention) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 340. The Commission emphasized that the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, be considered victims, because their mental and moral integrity is violated, and that this may be aggravated in the absence of effective remedies. It understood that the consequences of violence and impunity may have a particularly prejudicial effect on the members of victims’ families who were children at the time of the facts. 341. It also indicated that, in this case, a presumption juris tantum can be applied that permits it to be presumed that the the members of Vladimir Herzog’s family suffered harm to their mental and moral integrity. It also noted that the State disseminated false information on the circumstances of his death, and this had a particularly serious impact on the mental and moral integrity of his family. 342. In particular, they argued that Clarice Herzog had sufferedd extreme anguish, fear and apprehension from the time her husband was informed that he would be arrested and up until the present time. It also indicated that it was evident that this right had been seriously impaired in the case of Ivo and André Herzog, the journalist’s sons, who at the time of the facts were 9 and 7 years old, respectively. 343. The Commission concluded that the State had violated the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Zora Herzog (who died on November 18, 2006), Clarice, André and Ivo Herzog. 344. The representatives argued that, from the circumstances of the facts concerned, it may be concluded that the mental and moral interity of Zora, Clarice Herzog, André and Ivo Herzog had been harmed. 345. They also referred to the climate of terror and intimidation resulting from the systematic context of violations facilitated and tolerated by the State authorities and added that Clarice had received repeated death threats. 346. In addition, they indicated that Zora Herzog had died in 2006 without her right to know the truth and to obtain justice having been satisfied. In this regard, Clarice Herzog stated that it had been very upsetting to live with the false version of her husband’s death for such a long time both for herself, and for Vladimir Herzog’s mother and children, and that the family continued to suffer today because they had been unable to obtain justice. Her sons made similar statements. Ivo Herzog stated that the struggles for memory, truth and justice 383 Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 216. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 92. 384 385 Article 5. Right to Humane Treatment 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 89