86 the complaints and judicial and administrative initiatives in place to ascertain the facts, there has been a systematic refusal by the authorities to reveal information that allegedly is contained in the official archives in relation to the facts of the present case, causing harm to their psychological and emotional integrity. Given the abovementioned, they argued that the State violated Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims. 234. The State noted that since the beginning of the process of redemocratization, much has been done to heal the suffering of the next of kin of the victims and to reveal the historic facts of the prior period in time. Similarly, it argued that it has carried out, among other efforts, actions to effectuate payment of compensation to the next of kin of the victims, to locate and identify the bodily remains of the victims of the repression, and to guarantee the right to information and the truth. B. Considerations of the Court 235. The Court has considered in numerous cases that the next of kin of the victims of violations of human rights can also be victims themselves.337 In this regard, this Court has determined that it can presume a harm to the right to mental and moral integrity of direct family members of victims of certain violations of human rights by applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, and permanent companions (hereinafter “direct family members”), when and if they correspond to the specific circumstances of the case. In the case of said direct family members, it corresponds to the State to disprove said presumption.338 In other cases, the Court should analyze whether the evidence in the case file evinces harm to the personal integrity of the alleged victim. Regarding those people whom the Tribunal will not presume a harm to personal integrity for not being a direct family member, the Court will assess, for example, if there is a particularly close connection between said persons and the victims of the case that would allow for the determination of harm to their personal integrity, and as such, a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. This Court may also evaluate if the alleged victims have involved themselves in the search for justice in the specific case,339 or if they have endured suffering as a consequence of the facts of the case or because of the subsequent actions or omissions of the State authorities in light of the facts.340 236. In this manner, the Court presumes a violation to the right to personal integrity of the direct family members of Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva and of the 337 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, Operative Paragraph Fourth; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 220, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 126. 338 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 326, para. 119; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 220, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 127. 339 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 63; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 188, para. 129, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 127. 340 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 137, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 127.