Parties the obligation to investigate conduct that is prohibited by those treaties and to punish those responsible. (supra paras. 90 and 109). X RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] WITH REGARD TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO MARÍA LEONTINA MILLACURA LLAIPÉN, FABIOLA VALERIA TORRES, AND MARCOS ALEJANDRO TORRES MILLACURA 140. The Court also accepts the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State with regard to the suffering caused to Mrs. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén and Mrs. Fabiola Valeria Torres, as well as Mr. Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, as a consequence of the enforced disappearance of Mr. Torres Millacura. This constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention (supra para. 36). The Tribunal will now refer to the proven facts in order to later specify the scope of this violation. A. Non-disputed facts. 141. The State recognized that “the suffering experienced by the relatives of Iván [Eladio Torres Millacura] due to [his] illegal and arbitrary deprivation of liberty […], the lack of information on his whereabouts, his disappearance, and the lack of investigation into what happened, as well as the powerlessness and anguish suffered during years of inactivity by State authorities toward bringing the facts to light and punishing those responsible, despite repeated requests and complaints to authorities over more than six years,” constituted the basis for which the family members should be considered victims of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. B. Considerations of the Court. 142. The Court has found, in numerous cases, that the family members of the victims of human rights violations can themselves be victims. 155Particularly, in cases involving the enforced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand the violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the family members of the victims as a direct consequence of this phenomenon, as the fact itself of the enforced disappearance causes them severe suffering. This suffering increases due to, among other factors, State authorities’ consistent refusal to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim or to initiate an effective investigation to establish what occurred. 156 Also, this Court has established that the deprivation of truth with regard to the whereabouts of the victim of enforced disappearance entails a form of cruel and inhumane treatment for close family members.157 143. In this case, in addition to the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State the Court observes that Mrs. Millacura Llaipén complained repeatedly of the enforced disappearance of her son before State authorities, without receiving 155 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, Operative Paragraph 4; Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala, supra note 69, para. 220, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 126. 156 Cf. Case of Blake V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 23, para. 161, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala, supra note 69, para. 220. 157 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 114; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 240, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 133. 44