27 108. The Commission states that, as the testimonies and the expert opinion of the psychologist have shown and, “as the State itself accepted before the Court,” the “personal integrity” of the next of kin of Mr. Cantoral-Huamaní and Mrs. García-Santa Cruz was “[…] affected as a direct result of the unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty of their loved ones […], the ill-treatment and torture suffered by the latter, their subsequent extrajudicial execution, and the absence of a judicial investigation into what happened for more than 18 years to date.” It also states that “the suffering undergone by the said next of kin during the detention and death, as well as the impotence and anguish endured for years owing to the lack of action by the State authorities to clarify the facts and to punish those responsible […], are reasons why the next of kin should be considered victims of the violation of the right to mental integrity.” 109. The representatives of the alleged victims affirm that “[…] the families of Saúl Cantoral and Consuelo García have also suffered not only from the death of their loved ones and the circumstances in which this occurred, but also owing to the filling of the investigations, in order to ensure the impunity of the facts for 18 years […].” 110. When examining Article 5 of the American Convention, and recalling the case law of the Court that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations can, in turn, be victims, the State indicated that “[i]n this case, given the sufferings of the victims, we can affirm that these sufferings extend to the closest members of the family, particularly those who had close affective ties with the victim. This is due to the fact that the victims died in unclear circumstances and also because the authors of the crime have not been identified, investigated and punished.” However, the State also affirmed that it had not violated Article 5 of the American Convention with regard to the next of kin of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz (supra paras. 27 and 28). 111. Lastly, the State requested the Court to “[…] take into account the documentary evidence supporting the relationship and pre-existence of the next of kin of the victims, indicated by the Commission.” The State referred, in particular, to the following next of kin: (i) “in the case of the siblings of the victim García-Santa Cruz, their existence and close affective ties with the victim have not been proved”; (ii) “regarding the parents of the victim Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní, their pre-existence to the regrettable event of his death must be proved, since this documentation does not appear in the case file” and (iii) with regard to the siblings of the victim Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, it respectfully requests that, in consideration of the Court’s case law, the close affective ties that existed with the victim should be proved, so that [the Court ] can assess the merits at the appropriate time.” 112. The Court reiterates that the next of kin of the victims of certain human rights violations can, in turn, be victims.76 In this regard, in other cases, the Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims has been violated based on the additional suffering they have endured as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and owing to the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts.77 113. The Court finds that the following specific facts have been proved. First, the violent death of the victims was surrounded by uncertainty and the absence of information and, to a great extent, this still continues (supra paras. 69 and 70). The psychologist’s expert opinion is illustrative with regard to the family of Consuelo García-Santa Cruz when it 76 Cf. Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 102; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 137; and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 335 77 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 137; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 335; and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 6, para. 96.