- 114 - possible to declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations in application of a iuris tantum presumption in the case of mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, and husbands, wives and permanent companions, as well as brothers and sisters,429 provided this accords with the particular circumstances of the case. Regarding the direct next of kin, it is for the State to disprove this presumption. 430 On this point, the Court has understood that the right to mental and moral integrity of some next of kin has been violated owing to the additional suffering they have undergone as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent actions of the State authorities in relation to those violations. 431 321. Such suffering gives rise to the presumption of a violation of the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin in cases of forced disappearances, 432 and also in the case of other egregious human rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions,433 sexual violence and torture.434 Thus, taking into account the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court considers that the violation of the right to personal integrity of the direct next of kin of the eleven women victims of sexual violence and torture in this case may be presumed. The presumed violation of this right to the detriment of indirect next of kin will be examined below (paras. 323 and 324). 322. In this case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity of all the next of kin of the eleven women victims of torture and unlawful and arbitrary detention in this case, among other violations. 323. Notwithstanding the said acknowledgment and the presumption applicable in this case, the Court notes that, based on the information and evidence provided to the case file, the personal integrity of the next of kin identified by the Commission and the representatives was affected by one or several of the following circumstances:435 (i) lack of information regarding the detention of their family members, which led to feelings of anguish and uncertainty; (ii) involvement in different actions to seek justice or information to achieve, on the one hand, the release of their family members and, on the other, the punishment of those responsible for the sexual torture; Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253, para. 286; Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 227, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 226. 429 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 123. 430 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 121. 431 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 226. 432 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 218, and Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 274. 433 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, paras. 137 a 139, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 297. 434 Cf. Expert opinion of Ximena Antillón, provided by affidavit on November 1, 2017 (evidence file, folios 37224 to 37340) 435