267. Both the Commission and the representatives argued the violation of the right to personal integrity 293 of Narciso González Medina’s wife and children, namely: Luz Altagracia Ramírez, and Ernesto, Rhina Yokasta, Jennie Rossana and Amaury González Ramírez. In particular, they indicated that the disappearance of Mr. González Medina, the absence of a diligent investigation into the facts, the uncertainty about his whereabouts, the line of inquiry relating to suicide, and the impunity of the case caused intense suffering to Narciso González Medina’s family. 268. The representatives added that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to protect the family, based on Article 17 294 of the American Convention, because the disappearance of Narciso González Medina and the absence of the truth “particularly affected their family life and the family life project.” 269. The Dominican Republic responded that “from the investigations conducted by the State, it has not been determined that Mr. González was subjected to forced disappearance”; consequently “it could not be held responsible with regard to the family either.” In addition, it denied that it had violated Article 17 of the American Convention to the detriment of Narciso González Medina’s family, without submitting any specific arguments in this regard. B) Considerations of the Court 270. In numerous cases, the Court has considered that the family of the victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn be victims of the violation of the right to personal integrity. 295 In particular, in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim’s family is a direct result of this phenomenon, which causes them severe suffering owing to the act itself, which increases, among other factors, due to the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation in order to clarify what happened. 296 Furthermore, this Court has established that the denial of the truth about the whereabouts of a victim of forced disappearance entails a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the closest family members, 297 which leads to the presumption of harm to their mental and moral integrity. 298 This presumption is established juris tantum with regard to mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, spouses, and permanent companions, provided this corresponds to the specific circumstances of the case. 299 This presumption has not been invalidated by the Dominican Republic in this case. 293 Article 5 of the American Convention, supra note 81. 294 Article 17(1) of the Convention stipulates that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 295 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 301. 296 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 301. 297 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 114, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 123. 298 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 279, para. 119, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra note 150, para. 133. 299 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 296, para. 114, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 302. 82