438. The State argued that some of the family members that the Commission had included as victims of violation of personal integrity did not qualify as such, because in its opinion, the rights of these individuals had not been violated by the State because they had no close family tie with the alleged victims. The State asked the Court to rule on the degree of kinship that petitioning family members should have with the alleged victim and how much of an impact the death had had on their well-being. 439. The State argued in the case of Herma Luz Cueva Torres, the mother of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva, that her health problems had been caused primarily by the “kidnapping” of her daughter by the MRTA when she was still a minor, and not because of the alleged extrajudicial execution. The State also pointed to the family members of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, noting that it was impossible to conclude reliably that alleged victim Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe had been legally recognized as his daughter, and also observing that Peceros Pedraza had apparently abandoned his then domestic partner before the birth, which negated claims of any close relationship between father and daughter, and therefore, any breach of her rights. The State then argued that, aside from the agreement by family members that Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe was the daughter of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, there was no other evidence pointing to consanguinity between them. 440. The State moved on to discuss injury to the rights of family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez. It denied any alleged violation of the rights of his brother Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña and argued that “their relationship was not so close”, because as was clear from the latter’s testimonies, the two brothers had not lived together for a significant amount of time, both because they had been raised in different environments, and because of the activities that Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez began to develop in the MRTA. 441. The State denied that the disintegration of the family had been caused directly by the State's action and argued that family ties had broken down when the alleged victims chose to enroll in the MRTA. According to the State, “the families of the ‘terrorist criminals’ denied their relationship with them, or simply avoided being found, […] and therefore, the decision of those who chose to join a terrorist group had a serious impact on their family members that could not be attributed to the State.” The State held up as additional proof of this breakdown the fact that family members of the alleged victims did not even know that their relatives were dead, as they had received no news of them for years. 442. The State denied that it had conducted clandestine burials of the alleged victims or barred the families from giving them a proper burial. The State said, in this regard, that it had not been in a position at that time to find the next of kin of the alleged victims. In its view, this conclusion could be drawn from several considerations: (i) that according to their testimonies, family members of the alleged victims had expressed surprise when they were located by the Red Cross; (ii) that none of the family members had claimed the bodies of the alleged victims, due to the fact that, with the exception of Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, they did not know that their relatives had died in the residence of the Japanese ambassador, and (iii) that in other cases in which the State had the technical means to find the next of kin, it had done so and had turned over the bodies as soon as possible. The State made particular reference to the case of Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, as he, unlike the other family members, did admit that he had known his brother was dead and the body was in the hands of the authorities, but even so, he had not claimed the body. Finally, the State argued that it had provided all the necessary judicial guarantees, contending that processes were currently underway in Peru, that the family members had been participating in them, and they had been receiving legal counsel free of charge.