36 presumption,186 applicable in cases of massacres and extrajudicial executions,187 with respect to the family members of the deceased. In circumstances where the presumption is not in order, the Court must evaluate the existence of a link between the family member and the victim that would permit establishing a harm to that person’s personal integrity and whether the evidence in the file of the case confirms a violation of the right to personal integrity.188 124. In this case, it may be presumed that the right to personal integrity of the direct family members of the deceased persons of October 5, 1995 were affected. The Court does not have the elements to refute this presumption. In addition, it may be considered here that the harm to the personal integrity of those family members was aggravated because they lived through the incident189 and, in some cases, were eyewitnesses to the death of a loved one.190. In addition, there is no record that the State provided medical or psychological care in this situation.191 Therefore, Guatemala violated the right to personal integrity of the direct family members of the deceased victims. 125. As to the next of kin of the injured persons, the Commission and the representative only indicated as alleged victims the next of kin of Francisco Hernández. Nevertheless, the next of kin of Santiago Maquín Quip and Rosendo Morales Ortiz should also be considered in this same category since, with respect to both, the Court did not hold a violation of their right to life since it determined that it was not possible to establish a link between their deaths and the injuries suffered on October 5, 1995 (supra para. 112).192 126. Regarding the case of the next of kin of Francisco Hernández, the information provided by the parties and the statements of his family members do not allow establishing an additional suffering as a result of the special circumstances that they lived through.193 The Court, thus, considers that there was not, in relation to the injuries suffered by Francisco Hernández, an infringement to the personal integrity of Cruz That presumption would shift the burden of proof, since it would not be necessary to prove the violation of the right of such “direct family members,” but it would be for the State to disprove it (cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 351). 187 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 146; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 218 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 351. 188 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119 and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 328. 189 The incident witnessed by the family members of the deceased victims was related by some of them. Cf. 1.- statements on video recordings of March 21, 2017 of Atilana Hernández Maldonado, Efraín Grave Morente, Florinda Sales Jacinto, José Coc Cajbón, María Medina, María Miguel, Mario Alberto Ramírez Hernández, Manuela Toma Gómez, Natividad Sales Calmo, Pedro Coc Chén, Petrona Miguel Méndez, Ramón Mateo and Tomás Grave Morente, incorporated as documentary evidence, presented together with the brief with pleadings and motions; 2.- Statements of Tomás Grave Morente and Natividad Sales Calmo before the Commission, supra; 3.- Statement of AMQ (evidence file, annex 3 to the Merits Report, fs. 5 to 8); 4.- Statement of Efraín Grave Morente before the Guatemalan judiciary, supra, and 5.- Statement of Efraín Grave Morente before the Court, supra. 190 Cf. Statement of Tomás Grave Morente before the Court, supra, in which he related the final words of his mother, Hilaria Morente de la Cruz. Mr. Grave Morente said: “I went to her and I could see that she had received two wounds in the chest, she was bleeding, and then she said to me: ‘my son, my son, take care of yourself, I can’t stand it any longer’ and began to say goodbye, already with signs of dying. What I did was, take off my shirt and put it over her face because she didn’t look good.” 191 Similarly, reference is made to the statement of Efraín Grave Morente before the Court, supra. Regarding the lack of psychological assistance, he indicated”: “I did not receive psychological help from the State, totally abandoned, we had support but it was from an NGO, the Doctors of the World of Spain, but that does not have anything to do with the State of Guatemala, the State of Guatemala didn’t even give us one pill to calm our nerves.” 192 Neither did the Court find the violation of the right to life of Gerardo Maldonado Sales that had been alleged, but with respect to him there was no indication of next of kin. 193 Cf. Statements of Atilana Hernández Maldonado and Rolando Hernández Maldonado by video recordings of March 23, 2017, incorporated as documentary evidence, presented with the brief with pleadings and motions. 186