B. Considerations of the Court 443. The Court recalls its case law holding that the family members of victims of certain human rights violations may be victims in their own right. 474 The Court has understood that the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ “next of kin” and other persons with close personal ties to such victims has been violated as a result of the additional suffering they have experienced because of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent actions of State authorities in relation to those violations.475 444. The Court has maintained that in cases of alleged arbitrary or extrajudicial execution, it can be understood that the violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the “next of kin” of victim(s) is a direct consequence of the phenomenon. The Court has therefore held parents, children, spouses, and permanent domestic partners as the “next of kin” of people found to be victims of a serious human rights violation, such as a massacre,476, forced disappearance,477 or extrajudicial execution.478 In such cases, the Commission and the representatives do not need to prove that the right to personal integrity has been breached, as a iuris tantum assumption is in effect; the burden of proof is reversed and it falls to the State to refute violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of these “next of kin”, which does not need to be proven.479 445. The presence of this iuris tantum presumption on behalf of the victims’ “next of kin” does not preclude the possibility that other people who do not fit into this category may demonstrate a particularly close tie between themselves and the victims in the case, such as would allow the Court to declare a violation of their right to personal integrity, 480 and who can therefore be held as victims of the reproachable conduct or omissions by the State. Under these assumptions, the Court must examine whether the evidence in the case file proves that the right to personal integrity for the alleged victim has been abridged, regardless of his or her kinship to one of the other victims in the case. As for the people that the Court does not assume to have experienced harm to their personal integrity because they are not next of kin, the Court must evaluate, for example, whether particularly close ties existed between them and the victims in the case that would enable them to prove an impairment of their right to personal integrity. The Court can also assess whether the alleged victims have been involved Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 119, y Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 201. 474 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 113 and 114, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina, supra, para. 138. 475 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 146 and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 243 and 244. 476 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 114, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 533. 477 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 218, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119. 478 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra, para. 161. 479 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 281. 480