273. The Court has stated on other occasions that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may be victims in their own right. 351 The Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of some of the next of kin has been violated due to the suffering they experienced as a result of the acts or omissions of the State authorities, 352 taking into account, among other matters, the steps taken to obtain justice and the existence of close family ties. 353 It has also declared the violation of this right owing to the suffering resulting from the acts perpetrated against their loved ones. 354 B.1.1. Next of kin of César Alberto Mendoza 274. This Court considers it evident from the affidavits provided to it, 355 as well as from the social report on Cesar Alberto Mendoza in the case file, that his mother, Isolina del Carmen Herrera; his companion from 1999 until August 2007, Romina Beatriz Muñoz, and his daughters and son Ailén Isolina Mendoza, Samira Yamile Mendoza and Santino Geanfranco Mendoza, suffered psychological harm owing to the life sentence imposed on him. Thus, the Court observes that the social report records that Cesar Alberto Mendoza’s mother perceived his imprisonment as the “loss of a member of the family,” which caused her “profound pain” and adverse effects on their daily life. 356 The report also documented how Cesar Mendoza’s imprisonment had a significant impact on the situation as a mother of Romina Beatriz Muñoz and on the raising of their children, whose growth and development were “adversely affected by their father’s imprisonment.” 357 According to the affidavit prepared by Ms. Muñoz, César Alberto Mendoza’s children, Ailén, Zamira and Santino, “never […] knew [their father …] outside prison, and always saw him in grey, dark, enclosed spaces,” a situation that negatively affected their conduct. Consequently, at the request of the authorities of the educational centers they attended, Ms. Muñoz had “to take all three to a psychologist.” In particular, Ms. Muñoz stressed that it was difficult to explain to their eldest daughter, Ailén Mendoza, “that her father could remain in prison for ever.” 358 Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that Argentina is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Isolina del Carmen Herrera, Romina Beatríz Muñoz, Ailén Isolina Mendoza, Samira Yamile Mendoza and Santino Geanfranco Mendoza. B.1.2. Next of kin of Claudio David Núñez 351 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 113 and 114, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 242. 352 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 290. 353 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 163, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 290. 354 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, para. 113 and 114, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 249. 355 Cf. Testimony by affidavit of Isolina del Carmen Herrera of August 21, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1407 and 1408), and Testimony by affidavit of Romina Beatríz Muñoz of August 22, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1428 to 1430). 356 Cf. Social report on César Alberto Mendoza of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6699). 357 Cf. Social report on César Alberto Mendoza of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6700). 358 Cf. Testimony by affidavit of Romina Beatríz Muñoz of August 22, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1428 and 1429). 90