considered that the facts of the case "have been clarified" in the Liability Trials and the ordinary criminal process, as well as published in the facts by the Truth Commission. B. Considerations of the Court 159. The Court has repeatedly held 201 that the family of the victims of certain human rights violations may be considered as victims. 202 Similarly, the Court has declared the violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of next of kin of victims of certain types of human rights violations. In this sense, it has applied an iuris tantum presumption with respect to parents, children, spouses and permanent companions, and siblings, provided that this responds to the particular circumstances in the case. 203 Furthermore, in its most recent case law, the Court considers that, in the context of an forced disappearance, this presumption is also applicable to the sisters and brothers of the disappeared victims, unless the contrary is revealed by the specific circumstances of the case. 204 160. Additionally, in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, this Court has affirmed that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim’s next of kin is a direct result of this phenomenon. The suffering is increased by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation in order to clarify what happened. 205 These effects, fully included in the complexity of forced disappearance, will be projected over time as long as the final whereabouts of the disappeared victim remain unclarified. 206 161. In this regard, the Court recalls its case law to the effect that obstacles to access to information on the truth about the whereabouts of a victim of forced disappearance results in a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the closest family members. 207 Also, the Tribunal has established that the clarification regarding the whereabouts of the disappeared person is of utmost importance for the next of kin, as this permits the next of kin to relieve their anguish and the suffering caused by the uncertainty of the whereabouts of their disappeared next of kin. 208 162. In this particular case, the Court notes that the expert opinion rendered by affidavit by Guiomar Hylea Bejarano Gerke referred to the psychological effects caused to the sisters Verónica, Teresa and Olga Flores Bedregal by the forced disappearance of their brother. The expert report confirms that Verónica and Lilian Teresa Flores Bedregal suffer from a deep sense of suffering, anguish, and depression and determines the existence of chronic psychological damage that had an impact on the quality of life of the victims. In the case of Veronica Flores Bedregal, this was increased by the loss of the "symbolic father figure." In Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative point, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 202 The foregoing, depending on the circumstances of the case, given the suffering suffered as a result of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones, and because of the subsequent actions or omissions of the state authorities in the face of the facts. Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 203 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 286, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 174. 204 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 286, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 174. 205 Case of the Los Josefinos Village Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 121. 206 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 103, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, supra, para. 250. 207 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, supra, para. 114, and Case of the Los Josefinos Village Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 122. 208 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. supra, para. 155, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 222. 201 48