disprove that presumption,221 the application of which is appropriate in cases of extrajudicial executions222 and forced disappearances, among others.223 186. Regarding the next of kin of Ms. Raggio, Ms. Maidanik and Ms. Reyes, although the Court lacks jurisdiction to evaluate the State conduct with respect to the circumstances of their deaths, it is obvious that the seriousness of the failure to conduct an investigation for more than 36 years should be understood in the light of this fact. The Court considers that it may presume that the three women’s parents or spouses, indicated as victims in this case, were affected in their personal integrity because of State conduct that violated human rights, which was analyzed in this judgment. 187. The Court also notes that, in addition to the parents, children and spouses, another type of family members of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Raggio, Ms. Reyes and Mr. Tassino has been indicated as victims. That is the case of the siblings of Ms. Raggio, Ms. Reyes and Mr. Tassino, the cousin of Ms. Maidanik and the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of Ms. Reyes. 188. Testimony have been offered to explain how the human rights violations affected the different family members as a group. Thus, Aidee Santo, whose family was friendly with the Tassino family, stated that the forced disappearance of Mr. Tassino “totally changed” the life of her family and that his mother, as well as other members of his family, had died without knowing what happened to him. She added that the family continues to “seek answers.” Silvana Bocage, also a friend of the Tassino family, declared that the whole family had “emotional sequelae” because of what occurred. Ana Guliak Potasnik, sister of Diana Maidanik, stated that after Diana’s death “fear and insecurity […] profoundly traumatized the family.” Juan Quiñones, brother-in-law of Silvia Reyes, indicated that the impact of the incident on the family was “total, heartbreaking; a material and human destruction that even today has consequences for the survivors.” He also stated that “they have suffered and have continued to suffer tremendous solitude because of what they had to live through.” He also indicated that Estela Reyes “was very affected by what she lived through […] especially because of the tragic way in which she lost her brother.” The witness Wálter Pérez expressed that the family of Jaqueline Barrios, sister-in-law of Silvia Reyes, was “destroyed and finished�� and that their psychological and physical health deteriorated. 189. The Court considers that, in view of the above and of the gravity of the facts, it is reasonable to assume that, given the circumstances of the case, those persons who belong to each of the families involved, who were indicated as victims, have suffered in their personal integrity for the distress caused by State conduct that violated the human rights declared in this judgment, in other words, for the forced disappearances of the two men, for the failure to locate their whereabouts and for the lack of judicial proceedings to determine the criminal responsibilities for such acts and for the extrajudicial executions of the three women. It has been more than 35 years since the Court assumed contentious jurisdiction with respect to Uruguay and more than 44 or 47 years, depending on the case, since the first notice of those two forced disappearances Such a presumption would shift the burden of proof since it would not be for the “direct family” to prove the violation of human rights, but rather for the State to disprove it. (cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 7, 2009. Series C No. 201, para. 119 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, para. 351). 221 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 146; and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, para. 351. 222 223 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala, para. 263. 50