35 and the two boys, who died during the incident. The names of these victims are included, respectively, in Annexes B(2), B(3) and B(4) of this judgment, of which it forms part. VII.3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEASED AND INJURED PERSONS A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 121. The Commission concluded that the loss of a loved one in a situation similar to this case, as well as the delay in the proceedings, created a harm to the psychic and moral integrity of the next of kin of the persons directly affected. It stated that the next of kin of the deceased and injured persons, for being part of the Xamán finca Community, witnessed the killings and injuries. It underscored that they had not received adequate medical nor psychological care. It concluded that the State violated Article 5(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the deceased and injured persons. 182 The representative agreed with the Commission’s position. 122. The State, as has been pointed out (supra para. 103), indicated that it is not responsible for violating the right to personal integrity because of the domestic investigations. B. Considerations of the Court 123. The Court has repeatedly held183 that the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations may also be considered as victims.184 It has also stated that there may be a violation of the right to the personal integrity of the next of kin of victims of certain kinds of violations of human rights, applying the presumption iuris tantum with respect to next of kin, such as mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives and permanent companions, as long as it responds to the particular circumstances of the case.185 Regarding those family members, the State is responsible for refuting such a The Commission also referred to the following persons, other than Eulalia Antonio, named in Annex B(5) of this judgment: A) Next of kin of Santiago Maquín Quip (injured and subsequently deceased): 1.-Manuela Pop Choc (wife or companion (the representative informed that she died on June 15, 2016)); 2.-Francisco Quip Choc (son); 3.-Petrona Quip Pop (daughter); 4.-Margarita Quip Pop (daughter); 5.-Martín Maquín Quip Pop (son); 6.-Dominga Maquin Pop (daughter) and 7.-Santiago Quip Pop (son). B) Next of kin of Rosendo Morales Ortíz (injured and subsequently deceased): 8.-José Morales Ortíz (brother). C) Next of kin of Francisco Hernández (injured): 9.-Cruz Maldonado Silvestre (wife or companion); 10.-Martalia Hernández Maldonado (daughter); 11.-Andrés Hernández Maldonado (son); 12.-Florencia Hernández Maldonado (daughter) and 13.Rolando Hernández Maldonado (son, also injured). 183 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 156 and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 327. 184 The above, according to the circumstances of the case, in view of the suffering as a result of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and because of subsequent acts or omissions by State authorities regarding the incident (Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 351). 185 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119; Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 177 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 351. 182