43 her ignorant about all this, constitutes an aggravated violation of the prohibition of interference with an individual’s privacy and family life, as well as the right to preserve name, identity, and family relationships, as a means of personal identification. In particular, when, subsequently, the State has not taken any measure to reunite her with her biological family and restore her name and identity. 117. Thus, it can be concluded that, to the extent that the State interfered in her private and family life and failed in its obligation to respect and guarantee intimate aspects of personality – such as the right to a name – as well as factors concerning her interrelation with others – the right to a family – the State violated Articles 11(2), 17, 18 and 19 of the American Convention. In addition, in light of Article 19 of the American Convention, the Court reiterates the particular seriousness of the fact that a State Party to the Convention can be attributed with having applied or tolerated a systematic practice of illegal abduction and retention of children on its own territory,175 which included the alteration of their identity. In conclusion, taking into consideration the context of the terms of the American Convention, interpreted in light of Article 29(c) thereof and Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, the Court finds that the series of violations of the American Convention established in the present case constitute a violation or loss of the right to identity of Gregoria Herminia Contreras. 118. Regarding the representatives’ arguments that, in this case, the Court should establish this violation also to the detriment of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, and José Rubén Rivera Rivera, the Court considers that the violation of this right should only be analyzed with regard to Gregoria Herminia Contreras because, even though it has been established that “the original name of 69% of the 222 young people reunited with their families had been altered,”176 this assumption cannot be applied to establish the violation of the right to a name in all the cases. In this regard, the sole confirmation of the practice of disappearances is not enough, because evidence of the alleged violations is required. G. The right to personal integrity of the next of kin 119. Both the Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of the personal integrity of the next of kin of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras and José Rubén Rivera owing to the suffering caused by their disappearances and the uncertainty about their whereabouts or fate. 120. In numerous cases the Court has found that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may themselves be victims.177 In this case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the direct next of kin, of the siblings of the victims including those who had not been born at the time of the facts, and of other family members. The Court observes that, following the facts, Julia 175 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C. No. 63, para. 191; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, footnote 127, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 150, para. 199. 176 Expert opinion provided by Ana Georgina Ramos de Villalta, supra note 35, (evidence file, volume XI, affidavits, folio 7535). 177 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 133, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 235.