44 into account the foregoing upon the determination of the corresponding reparations (infra Chapter IX). 129. Regarding Rainer Ibsen Cardenas, the Tribunal notes that Mrs. Martha Castro Mendoza raised him since he was nine years old (supra para. 71). Given that this familial relationship has not been questioned and that the State has made a broad acknowledgment of responsibility that includes the violation of Article 5 regarding all the next of kin without exception or limitation as to the facts alleged in the application (supra paras. 5 and 24), the Tribunal presumes the suffering of Mrs. Martha Castro Mendoza for the events that occurred to the detriment of Rainer Ibsen. The foregoing is also applicable to Tito, Rebeca, and Raquel Ibsen Castro, siblings of Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas on their father’s side. In this respect, the Tribunal notes that all of them constitute a single family group. 130. On the other hand, the Court recalls that in other cases, the continued denial of the truth regarding the fate of a disappeared person constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of close next of kin.160 Likewise, the Court has indicated that in the face of acts of forced disappearance of persons, the State has the obligation to ensure the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of the next of kin through effective investigations. Furthermore, the lack of effective remedies has been regarded by the Court as an additional source of suffering and anguish for the victims and their family members.161 131. In the instant case, the Court considers that the link between the suffering of Marta Castro Mendoza, Tito Ibsen Castro, and Rebeca Ibsen Castro and the State’s denial to inform them of the truth on what happened to their next of kin (infra Chapter IX) is clear. Regarding Mrs. Marta Castro Mendoza, the Tribunal notes that in her statement, she referred to her frustration in the search for her husband and her son, Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, in the following terms: “I was from here to there without accomplishing anything [...], I could not do anything as I was powerless and desperate, [...]. The [State] authorities, neither in democracy and especially nor in dictatorships, helped us ever to know the fate and [what] happened to our loved ones.”162 132. In this way, this Tribunal has already noted the actions taken by Rebeca and Tito Ibsen Castro before different institutions and agencies of the State to seek justice for the disappearance of their father and brother and to learn of their whereabouts (supra paras. 89 and 110 and infra paras. 140 to 141, 143, 146, 205, 216 and 223). They, in turn, have tomb, and to stop thinking that his remains are lost[;] she wants to see him resting in a coffin.” Cf. Declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Raquel Ibsen Castro (case file on the merits, volume III, folio 649). 160 Cf. Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 166, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 221. 161 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. supra note 155, para. 114; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 167, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 221. 162 Cf. Declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Martha Castro Mendoza (case file on the merits, volume III, folio 637 to 639).