35 the State did not acquiesce to this claim: Adriana María Londoño Del Valle, Ana María Valle Villegas, Andrés Felipe Valle Villegas, Berta Lucía Valle Noreña, Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo, Claudia Helena Herrera Valle, Claudia María García Valle, Diana Patricia García Valle, Francisco Javier García Valle, Franklin Henao Valle, Fredy Henao Valle, Jairo Alberto Londoño Del Valle, Jannette Henao Valle, John Alberto Henao Valle, John Jairo Valle Noreña, Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña, Juliana Patricia Londoño Del Valle, Liliana María Herrera Valle, Luz Adriana Valle Noreña, María Victoria García Valle, Marta Luz García Valle and Mauricio Alberto Herrera Valle (all next of kin of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo), as well as Alejandro Jaramillo Mejía, Ana Catalina Hoyos Jaramillo, Andrés Felipe Ochoa Jaramillo, César Augusto Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Diego Alejandro Ochoa Jaramillo, Gabriela Gómez Jaramillo, Gonzalo de Jesús Jaramillo Correa, Jorge Mario Jaramillo Gutiérrez, José Miguel Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Juan Camilo Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Juan Gonzalo Jaramillo Mejía, Juliana Jaramillo Tobón, Luis Jairo Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Luisa María Gómez Jaramillo, María Isabel Jaramillo Mejía, Oscar Fernando Hoyos Jaramillo, Santiago Jaramillo Tobón and Victoria Alejandra Gómez Jaramillo (all next of kin of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa). 118. Consequently, since the Commission and the representatives asked that the Court declare these persons, who are not included in the State’s acquiescence, victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Court will proceed to make the corresponding analysis in light of its case law and the evidence provided. 119. In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify some aspects of its case law concerning the determination of violations of the personal integrity of the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations,76 or other persons with close ties to such victims. For instance, the Court considers that a violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the direct next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations can be declared, applying a presumption iuris tantum with regard to mothers and father, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, permanent companions (hereinafter “direct next of kin”), provided this responds to the specific circumstances of a case, as has happened, for example, in the cases of various massacres,77 forced disappearance of persons,78 and extrajudicial executions.79 With regard to these direct next of kin, it is for the State to disprove their claim. In other cases, the Court must analyze if the evidence in the case file proves a violation of the right to personal integrity of the alleged victim, whether he/she is a next of kin of another victim in the case or not. In relation to those persons regarding whom the Court does not presume that the right to personal integrity has been harmed, because they are not direct next of kin, the Court must assess, for example, whether there is a particularly close tie between them and the victims in the case that would allow the Court to declare a violation of their right to personal integrity. The Court can also assess whether the alleged victims have been involved in seeking justice in the specific case,80 or whether they have endured special suffering as a result of the facts of the case or of subsequent acts or 76 Cf. Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 163, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 62, para. 112. 77 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 28, para. 146, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 262. 78 Cf. Case of Blake, supra note 76, para. 114; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, paras. 174 and 175, and Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 96 and 97. 79 Cf. La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 218. 80 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 163; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 163, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 5, para. 46.