49 Liberty); 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 3 (Right to Juridical Personality); and 4(1) (Right to Life), in detriment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, based on the failure to comply with the duty to guarantee and respect those rights, established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, all of them in relation with Articles I and XI of the CIDFP. C.2 Right to humane treatment of the next of in of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco 160. The Commission and the representatives argued that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment of the following next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, namely, his twele children: Tita, Andrea, Rosendo, Romana, Evelina, Rosa, Agustina, Ana María, Carmen, Pilar, Victoria, and Judith, all or surnames Radilla Martínez. In this regard, the Tribunal turns to that stated in Chapter VII of this Judgment, in the sense that only Mrs. Tita and Andrea and Mr. Rosendo, all of surnames Radilla Martínez will be considered alleged victims (supra para. 111). 161. The Court in numerous cases has considered that the next of kin of the victims of violations of human rights can be, at the same time, victims.149 Specifically, in cases that involve the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to psychic and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victim is a direct consequence, precisely, of that phenomenon, which causes them a severe suffering due to the fact itself, which is increased, among other factors, by the constant negative of the state authorities to provide information regarding the whereabouts of the victim or to start an effective investigation in order to clarify what occurred.150 162. In this regard, this Tribunal has considered that it can declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims of certain violations of human rights applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses, and life partners (hereinafter “direct relatives”), as long as this responds to the specific circumstances of the case. In the case of those direct relatives, it is the State who shall invalidate said presumption.151 163. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal assumes, in principle, that the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco resulted in an infringement on the mental and moral integrity of his children Tita, Andrea, and Rosendo, of surnames Radilla Martínez. 164. The State has not invalidated said presumption, on the contrary, it admitted that “[t]he anguish characteristic of human nature upon not knowing the fate of a loved one, necessarily implies an acknowledgment of the State’s responsibility for said situation, in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights” in detriment of said next of kin (supra paras. 52 and 53). 149 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, Fourth operative paragraph; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 128, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 105. 150 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 23, para. 87, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 105. 151 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 40, para. 119, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 128.