43 investigation in order to clarify what occurred.155 127. In this regard, this Tribunal has considered that it can presume injury to the psychological and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victims of certain violations of human rights applying a iuris tantum presumption regarding mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses, and permanent life partners (hereinafter “direct relatives”), as long as this responds to the specific circumstances of the case. In the case of those direct relatives, it is the State who shall invalidate said presumption.156 In all other cases, the Tribunal must analyze if the evidence in the case file shows some affectation on the personal integrity of the alleged victim, regardless of whether he or she is a next of kin of another victim in the case or not. Regarding those persons in respect of whom the Court does not presume injury to personal integrity because they are not direct next of kin, the Court must assess, for example, whether there is a particularly close relationship between them and the victims in the case that would enable the Court to establish an affectation on their personal integrity and, therefore, a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. The Court may also assess whether the alleged victims have been involved in seeking justice in the specific case,157 or whether they have suffered 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.158 128. In this way, the Tribunal presumes the suffering of Mrs. Martha Castro Mendoza for the forced disappearance of his husband, Jose Luis Ibsen Peña, and the suffering of Tito, Rebeca and Raquel Ibsen Castro, as his children. The State did not disprove said presumption (supra para. 125). Furthermore, the affidavits rendered and the statements rendered at the public hearing by the next of kin of José Luis Ibsen Peña reveal the suffering they endured due to the violations committed against him.159 The Court shall take 155 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36., para. 114; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 161, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 220. 156 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 162, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 220. 157 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, Merits, supra note 117, para. 63; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. supra note 156, para. 119, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 11, para. 129. 158 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. supra note 155, para. 114; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 11, para. 129, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 195. 159 In that regard, Ms. Martha Castro affirmed that: “while [her husband] was detained, [she] was not allowed to see him[.] [O]nly the child, Tito, entered a few times to leave him some clothes [and] food[.] [S]ometimes Tito would go by himself from the house to the prison in order to try to see his father[.] [O]n one of these occations, Tito brought back Jose Luis’s bloody socks[;] that is how [she] became convinced that they tortured and beat prisoners in there, as a woman had told [her]. [Her] suffering was terrible and what hurts [her] the most is that [her] children also suffered. Cf. Declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Martha Castro Ibsen (case file on the merits, volume III, folios 637 and 639). During the public hearing (supra para. 8), Tito Ibsen Castro indicated that he was the only one allowed to see his father while he was detained in EL Pari. He also stated that his father was kept in solitary confinement for three days and that when he entered for the first time to bring him food he suffered “fasting and hunger.” Mr. Tito Ibsen also received from his father his passport, ring, dental plaques and a watch, with the instruction to give them to his mother. Next day, his father told him to take care of his mother and his sisters, because this would possibly be the last time he would see him. On the other hand, Rebeca Ibsen Castro declared that at the time that his father was arrested she “was 10 years old and would go to the detention center and cried because she was not allowed to get in to see [her] dad[;] […, and] that she continuously suffered very much because she could not understand [why] there was so much cruelty with the person […] she loved so much […]”. Cf. Declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro (case file on the merits, volume III, folio 739). Finally, Raquel Ibsen Castro declared that “[her] greatest wish in this life is to bury [her] father[.] She wants to see [him] within a