his report that “[t]his whole situation and its immediate and mediate context have greatly affected the [whole] family, because it was eclipsed by dedicating the greatest physical, material, financial and spiritual efforts to ensure the survival of doña Melba.” 212 156. Regarding the violation of the right to personal integrity of Melba Peralta Mendoza, Melba Suárez Peralta’s mother, the Court recalls its previous considerations concerning the determination of the beneficiaries of this case (supra para. 28). Furthermore, the Court has stated, on repeated occasions, that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. On this point, the Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of some family members of victims has been violated owing to the additional suffering that they have undergone as a result of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones, and because of the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts. 213 157. The Court has understood that, in certain cases of grave human rights violations, it is possible to presume the damage caused to certain family members, following the suffering and anguish that the facts of the said cases suppose. 214 Thus, it has established that, in certain cases of grave violations, it is not necessary to prove the non-pecuniary damage to the parents of the victim, for example, arising from “the cruel death of their children, because it is inherent in human nature that anyone experiences anguish in the face of the suffering of his or her child.” 215 158. The Court has assessed the circumstances of this case. However, it understands that, since this is not a case that involves a grave violation of human rights in the terms of its case law, the violation of the personal integrity of the victim’s mother, as regards her suffering, must be proved. 216 159. In this regard, the Court observes that the only evidence concerning this fact describes the psychological harm to Melba Suárez Peralta and her family, in which her husband and children are specifically included. Regarding Melba Peralta Mendoza, it is indicated that she was “the person who was always attentive to what was happening to her daughter’s health, and she has also collaborated with her grandchildren’s schooling expenses and, in general, with the medication.” 217 160. Therefore, the Court understand that, even though Melba Peralta Mendoza was accredited as a victim of the denial of justice in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (supra para. 123), in this case, the State’s violation of her right to personal integrity has not been proved. 212 Report of Eduardo Tigua Castro (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1964 to 1966). The Court observes that the testimony of the witness Eduardo Tigua Castro provided by affidavit, which was offered by the representative of the presumed victims and requested in the Order of the President of December 20, 2012, supra was not submitted. 213 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra, paras. 144 and 146, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra, para. 154. 214 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of García and family members, supra, para. 161. 215 Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 76. 216 105. 217 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lópes, supra, paras. 156 to 163, and Case of Vera Vera et al., supra, paras. 100 to Report of Eduardo Tigua Castro (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1964 to 1966). 47