Gaetán, Celia Natividad Sedarri Aparicio, Estela Reyes Sedarri, Washington Javier Barrios Fernández, Washington Barrios, Hilda María Fernández Rodríguez and Jaqueline Barrios Fernández, next of kin of Diana Maidanik, Laura Raggio and Silvia Reyes, Uruguay violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. VII.3 RIGHT TO THE PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF VICTIMS OF FORCED DISAPPEARANCES AND OF EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS A. Arguments of the Commission and of the representative 183. The Commission alleged that the extrajudicial executions and disappearances caused grief, anguish, and uncertainty in the victims’ next of kin for those acts that were intensified by the lack of clarification of the facts. The Commission determined that the right to personal integrity (Article 5(1) of the Convention) of the next of kin of the victims of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances was violated. 184. The representative also alleged that the right to personal integrity of the next of kin of the persons who were disappeared or were extrajudicially executed was violated.218 B. Considerations of the Court 185. The Court has repeatedly noted that the next of kin of victims of certain violations of human rights may be considered as victims because of the suffering caused by the violations committed against their loved ones or due to later acts or omissions on the part of State authorities.219 Thus, there is a violation of the right to personal integrity, applying a presumption of iuris tantum with regard to family members such as the parents, children, spouses and permanent companions (the direct next of kin) of the victims of certain human rights violations, provided that this responds to the particular circumstances in the case.220 With respect to those family members, the State must It mentioned that the uncertainty and the fake information that the family obtained about Mr. Tassino and that he was “moved from one place in the country to another” was an “additional form of psychological torture.” It also pointed out that the family could not undergo the “proper mourning” since “he was never considered dead.” It also expressed that “the son of Luis Eduardo and Elena Zaffaroni was born in captivity and grew up not only not knowing his father, but also being a child who is afraid that the same may happen to him because of nothing more than bearing the same name as his father.” 218 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 153. 219 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 119; Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 177 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, para. 351. 220 49