in seeking justice in the specific case,481 or whether they have suffered harm as a result of the facts of the case or of subsequent acts or omissions on the part of the State authorities in relation to the facts.482 The Court has considered at least the following points: (i) the presence of close family ties; (ii) the particular circumstances of the relationship with the victim; (iii) the way the family member took part in the quest for justice; (iv) the State’s response to actions they have taken; (v) the context of a system that hindered free access to justice, and (vi) the families’ having to live in a state of continuing uncertainty as a result of not knowing the victims’ whereabouts. 446. The following persons were alleged to be victims of the breach of Convention Article 5 in the instant case: Herma Luz Cueva Torres as mother of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva; Florentín Peceros Farfán, as father, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros, as mother, and Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe, as daughter, of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, and Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña as brother of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez483. 447. The iuris tantum presumption would apply to Herma Luz Cueva Torres, Florentín Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros and Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe, as they qualify as “next of kin” according this Court’s case law (supra para. 444), but in keeping with the provisions set forth in Chapter IX supra, the Court has not held family members as direct victims of the alleged violations of the right to life. The Court must therefore rule on whether Article 5 of the American Convention has been breached due to the harm derived from the alleged extrajudicial executions that the Court did not recognize as proven or on other grounds of suffering and distress, as these are always additional to the violation of the right to life. 448. The Court will now examine the arguments brought by the parties and the Commission regarding whether the brother of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, 484 the latter having been declared a direct victim of violation of the right to life, is himself a victim. Based on the Court’s case law, (supra para. 444), the iuris tantum presumption would not apply to Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, and the Court must therefore look to the body of evidence to determine whether he can be held as a victim under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court will determine, in light of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, whether there was a close enough tie between Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña and Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez to confirm that his personal integrity was harmed, which would entail a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 449. The Court comments, in this regard, that: (a) although Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña and Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez did not live together as children, they had a close family relationship, especially since they had both taken up residency in Lima;485 (b) Edgar Odón Cruz Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Barrios family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 302. 481 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 114, and Case of Barrios family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 302. 482 See the above decision in the chapter on preliminary questions, that Lucinda Rojas Landa will not be held as an alleged victim in this case (supra paras. 95 to 98). 483 Both are sons of Nicolás Cruz Santos. Cf. Brief of his appearance as a family member in the criminal process and the relevant annexes (evidence file, volume XVII, CVR evidence, folios 19507 to 19511). 484 Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña stated that he is the brother of victim Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez. They were the sons of two different mothers, and did not live together as children. The two brothers reunited in 1981 when Eduardo finished high school and traveled to Lima to begin his university studies. They got together “sporadically, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly,” and spent their vacations together. Between 1985 and 1986, they met every two weeks at the home of an aunt, when the declarant was in Lima living in a dormitory. Cf. Statement before a public attestor by Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, January 28, 2014 (evidence file, affidavits, volume XXX, folios 20625 485