59 investigation into the forced disappearance constituted a source of suffering and additional anguish for the next of kin. 218. The representatives alleged the violation of said Article based on, inter alia, that the next of kin of Florencio Chitay Nech had been victims of suffering due to the displacement, persecution, shortages, and difficulties that they faced due to the disappearance of he who “acted as the head and supporter of the family,” the lack of clarification of the facts, the impossibility of carrying out a mourning period, the disintegration of their family, the rejection of the community, and the lack of investigation. 219. The State recognized its international responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Florencio Chitay Nech. (supra para. 13). 220. The Tribunal has reiterated in its jurisprudence that the next of kin of the victims of violations of human rights can be, on their own, victims.234 In particular, in cases that involve the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to physical and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victim is a direct consequence, precisely, of this phenomenon, which causes them severe suffering based in the same fact, and increases, among other factors, with the constant denial by State authorities to provide information about the whereabouts of the victim or to begin an efficient investigation in order to clarify what happened.235 Also, this Tribunal has found that it can declare a violation of the right to physical and moral integrity of the direct next of kin of victims of certain violations of human rights such as forced disappearance, by applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and permanent domestic partners (hereinafter, “direct next of kin”), so long as this corresponds to the particular circumstances of the case. Regarding said direct next of kin, it corresponds to the State to rebut said presumption.236 221. In this regard, the Court remembers that in the other cases it has considered of the continued deprivation of the truth regarding the whereabouts of a disappeared person, this constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the close next of kin.237 Also, the Tribunal has indicated that given facts of forced disappearance of persons, the State has the obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of the next of kin by way of effective investigative routes. Even more, the absence of effective remedies has been considered by the Court as a source of suffering and additional anguish for the victims and their next of kin.238 234 Cf. Case Castillo Páez V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of 3 of November of 1997. Series C No. 34, Punto Resolutivo cuarto; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 105, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 161. 235 Cf. Case Blake V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of 24 of January of 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 105, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 161. 236 Cf. Case Valle Jaramillo et. al. V. Colombia, supra note 155, para. 119; Case Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 128, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para 162. 237 Cf. Case Trujillo Oroza V. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 27 of February of 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 113, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 166. 238 Cf. Case Blake V. Guatemala, supra note 235, para. 114; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 113, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 167.