argued that the State had violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1). Furthermore, in its final written observations, the Commission noted that Ms. Toro, “as a searching mother, had to endure hearing unfounded accounts of the events.” It also stated that Mr. Tabares Toro's family members have been victims of harassment and threats and that the insecurity led them to move several times and led “to the exile of Ms. Toro and her daughter,” which has resulted in the breakdown of the family. It therefore argued that the State had also violated the rights to protection of the family and protection of honor set forth in Articles 17 and 11 of the American Convention. 96. The representatives argued that Mr. Tabares Toro's family suffered many psychosocial impacts as a result of the disappearance. They also stated that those impacts have been aggravated by the passage of time; the lack of information about what happened; the lack of a serious, exhaustive, rigorous, and effective investigation to locate the victim and the secret burial place and to return his remains to the family; and the absence of concrete results in the investigation to identify those responsible and punish them. All of this is in addition to the official version of the events given by the National Army and the institutions investigating the events, “that the soldier fled to join Front 53 of the FARC, an account that aims to dishonor him, vilify him, and disparage him.” They noted that every forced disappearance represents for the families “a form of cruel and inhuman treatment, if not torture” and that “the lack of information on the fate [...] of the disappeared person [...] constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment.” They emphasized that “the physical and emotional consequences were exacerbated by the threats received due to María Elena Toro’s tireless efforts [...] in seeking justice and information on the fate and whereabouts of her son. This situation, among others [...], forced her and her family to relocate for security reasons four times, as they feared there would be some kind of retaliation or the harassment would develop into attempts to kill or physically harm them.” They added that the disappearance of the alleged victim negatively affected family life, with the family being disrupted primarily by the search efforts of María Elena Toro. Thus, they requested that the State be found responsible for violating Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11, 13, and 17 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1). Later, in their final arguments, the representatives argued that Article 19 of the Convention had been violated, to the detriment of Mr. Tabares Toro's two minor sisters, because of the effect of the forced disappearance on them. 97. The State reiterated what it had stated in its acknowledgment of responsibility concerning the violation of Articles 5(1), 11, and 17 of the American Convention (supra para. 18), the harm suffered by the family of serviceman Tabares as a result of the State’s failure to seek justice, and the rootlessness and stigmatization they suffered. B. Considerations of the Court 98. The Court recalls that the alleged victims and their representatives can invoke the violation of rights not contained in the Merits Report as long as they fall within the factual framework established by the Commission, as the alleged victims are the ones who hold all the rights enshrined in the American Convention. 135 In this case, the representatives alleged the violation of Articles 11 and 17 of the Convention, as well as Article 19 of the same instrument (supra para. 29). The Court will not make reference in this section to the alleged violation of Article 13 because it was already analyzed in the previous chapter. 99. The Court has held on several occasions that the family members of the victims of certain human rights violations can be victims in their own rights, owing to the additional suffering they have experienced as a result of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and due to the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities in relation to those events. 136 The Court has stated that in cases of forced disappearance, “uncertainty surrounding the whereabouts of loved ones is one of the main sources of 135 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2022. Series No. 475, para. 25. 136 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2022. Series C No. 473, para. 87. 24