50 165. The statements offered before this Tribunal by the next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco are revealing in this sense. Mr. Rosendo Radilla Martínez, son of the victim, referred to the effects, on his family and on him specifically, of the State’s negative to offer information on his father’s whereabouts, and he indicated that: “In fact [it caused] a lot of damage. [… a]fter a long wait my mother passed away in 84, after being in a coma for a year. [… S]he waited for my father for a long time; she even ironed his clothes, she would arrange his clothes and say ‘Rosendo is going to come in through that door, Rosendo is going to come in through that door’ […] and my father never returned. I think that […] the pain I felt upon my mother’s death has been overcome [… She] is somewhere, her remains have been deposited in a mausoleum and I think I am resigned to the fact that my mother passed away. But not knowing where my father is, where he was left, what happened to him, that does affect me, in fact it affects me deeply […] [T]he suffering we have been submitted to has been very deep, […] and we need to close this chapter of our lives […] we have a prolonged mourning, […] we always carry this mourning with us, […] we are not at peace neither during the day nor the night because we remember him and we do not know what happened to him. [...] The most important thing would be for them to hand 152 over my father’s corpse, his body, his remains […]. 166. In this regard, the Court remembers that in other cases it has considered that the continuous deprivation of the truth regarding the fate of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the close relatives.153. In the present case, the relationship between the suffering of the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco with the violation of the right to know the truth is clear for this Tribunal (infra paras. 180 and 313), and it illustrates the complexity of the forced disappearance and the multiple effects it causes. 167. Likewise, the Tribunal has reiterated that when facing the facts of the forced disappearance of persons, the State also has the obligation to guarantee the right to humane treatment of the next of kin through effective investigations. Even more so, the Court has considered the absence of effective recourses as a source of suffering and additional anguish for the victims and their next of kin.154 In the present case, all the steps carried out by the next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco, due to his disappearance, and before different institutions and state dependencies to determine his whereabouts, as well as to impulse the corresponding investigations have been proven before the Court (infra paras. 183 through 189 and 260 through 264). 168. The delay and lack of effectiveness of those investigations (infra paras. 201, 212, 214, 234, and 245) has exacerbated in the next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco the feelings of impotence and distrust in the State’s institutions. 169. Likewise, the moral infringement suffered by the next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco, product of the stigmatization and indifference this type of cases received by the authorities has been proven. Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez stated that: [t]hey did not take [them] into account [… t]hey wanted to present an accusation and […] at the Public Prosecutors’ Office [they] told them ‘no, […] that already passed’. Thus, they never received 152 Cf. Statement offered by Mr. Rosendo Radilla Martínez during the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on July 7, 2009. 153 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 51, para. 125, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 113. 154 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala, supra note 150, para. 114, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 174, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 113.