301. On numerous occasions, the Court has considered that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.382 The Court has found that the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims has been violated because of the additional anguish they have suffered as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and because of the subsequent acts or omissions of State authorities with regard to the facts.383 302. In this regard, this Court has found that it can presume harm to the mental and moral integrity of the immediate family of the victims of certain human rights violations by applying a iuris tantum presumption with regard to mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses, and permanent companions, provided that this responds to the specific circumstances of the case. In the case of these family members, it is for the State to disprove the said presumption.384 In relation to the other next of kin, regarding whom the Court does not presume harm to their personal integrity, the Court must evaluate, for example, whether particularly close ties existed between them and the victims in the case that would enable them to prove an impairment of their personal integrity and, accordingly, a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. The Court may also evaluate whether the alleged victims have been involved in seeking justice in the specific case,385 or whether they have suffered harm as a result of the facts of the case or of subsequent acts or omissions on the part of the State authorities in relation to the facts.386 303. Thus, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, the Court presumes the violation of right to personal integrity of the immediate family of Benito Antonio Barrios, Narciso Barrios and Rigoberto Barrios, regarding whom the responsibility of State agents has been determined (supra paras. 68 and 96), as well as of the immediate family of Luis Alberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios, and Juan José Barrios, for whose death the State was been found responsible for failing to comply with its obligation to guarantee and to protect rights (supra para. 131). 304. Therefore, the said family members who are considered victims in this case are: Justina Barrios, Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, Carlos Alberto Ortuño, Orismar Carolina Alzul García, Ronis David Barrios Alzul García, Roniel Alberto Barrios Alzul, Luis Alberto Alzul, Annarys Alexandra Barrios Rangel, Benito Antonio Barrios Rangel, Orianny Nazareth Pelae, Oriana Nazareth Pelae, Maritza Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Michael José Barrios Espinosa and Dinosca Alexandra Barrios Espinosa. 305. Regarding the siblings and other next of kin of the victims indicated by the Commission in its Report on Merits,387 the Court recalls that, according to its case law, it cannot presume an effect on the integrity of the siblings and other next of kin of the Barrios 382 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 142. 383 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 179, para. 127. 384 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 94, para. 119, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 235. 385 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 63, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”), supra note 384, para. 235. 386 Cf. Case of Blake, supra note 385, para. 114, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”), supra note 384, para. 235. 387 Cf. Report on Merits of the Commission (merits file, tome I, folio 54). 95