89 determination of the whereabouts of their siblings has kept alive the hope of finding them, or the inability to identify their bodily remains has prevented them and their family members from providing a proper burial, disturbing their healing process and perpetrating suffering and uncertainty.349 239. In the present case, the violation to the right to personal integrity of the mentioned next of kin of the victims can be confirmed given the impact that the enforced disappearance of their loved ones has generated for them and for their family nucleus, the failure to ascertain the circumstances of their death, the lack of knowledge regarding their final whereabouts, and the impossibility of properly burying the bodily remains.350 In this regard, the expert witness Endo indicated that “one of the situations that makes up a large part of the suffering for decades is the absence of a proper burial, the disappearance of the bodies, […] and the unwillingness of the following governments to search for the bodily remains of their next of kin,”351 which has “perpetrated the memory of the disappeared person, and hampers the psychological detachment from said person and the next of kin that remain alive,” thus preventing closure.352 240. In this regard, the Court recalls that, pursuant to its jurisprudence, the deprivation of access to the truth of the facts of the location of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel and inhumane treatment for close relatives.353 Likewise, the Court has established that ascertaining the final whereabouts of the disappeared victim will permit the next of kin to heal from the anguish and suffering caused by uncertainty of the location of their disappeared family member.354 supra note 345, folio 1663; statement by Mrs. Lorena Moroni Girão Barroso rendered before a public notary, supra note 345, folio 1675; statement by Mrs. Maria Eliana de Castro Pinheiro rendered before a public notary, supra note 345, folio 1682; statement by Mrs. Sônia Maria Haas rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folios 1710 a 1712; Statement by Mrs. Maristella Nurchis rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1685; statement by Mrs. Terezinha Souza Amorim rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, 1715, and Mr. Roberto Valadão was a petitioner in the Ordinary Action 82.0024682-5, holding this position to date, supra note 345. 349 Cf. Statement by Mrs. Laura Petit da Silva in the public hearing, supra note 344; statement by Elizabeth Silveira and Silva in the public hearing, supra note 344; statement by Mrs. Diva Soares Santana rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1533; statement by Mr. Clovis Petit de Olivieira rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1613; statement by Mrs. Dilma Santana Miranda rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1630; statement by Mrs. Helenalda Resende de Souza Nazareth rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1654; statement by Mrs. Lorena Moroni Girão Barroso rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1675; statement by Mrs. Maria Eliana de Castro Pinheiro rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1682; statement by Mrs. Sônia Maria Haas rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1707; statement by Mrs. Terezinha Souza Amorim rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1715; Statement by Mrs. Maristella Nurchis rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folio 1685, and statement by Mrs. Valeria Costa de Couto rendered before a public notary, supra note 344, folios 1725 and 1726. 350 Cf. Statements rendered by the indicated alleged victims and the expert psychological report of Mr. Paulo César Endo on April 16, 2010 (case file on the merits, tome V, folios 2262 to 2283). 351 Cf. Expert psychological report of Mr. Paulo Cesar Endo, supra note 350, folio 2273. 352 Cf. Expert psychological report of Mr. Paulo Cesar Endo, supra note 350, folios 2271 and 2272. 353 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 221, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 130. 354 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 187, para, 155, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 222.