The psychological state of a family after a relative's disappearance can be described as “sustained shock,” that is, a latent arid prolonged critical state characterized by an inconclusive search for the loved-one, anguish, sorrow and incertitude. Children participate directly or indirectly in every moment of the progressive deterioration of the family structure […] Many, changes, occur in family life as a consequence of the disappearance, such as: lack of economic resources, particularly in modest families which depended upon the missing person's wages; permanent psychological stress, which sometimes causes other health problems among members of the family; changes in the use of time, since a good part of it is devoted to the search for the missing person; children are frequently left alone or without assistance [...].211 185. According to Doria Yanette Bautista Montañez’s statement, another immediate impact is the total disintegration of the family. 212 In this regard, as the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has pointed out, “appropriate and comprehensive psychological care must be provided to child victims of enforced disappearance and take into account the fact that the disintegration of families deeply affects children. States have duties to ensure children’s physical and psychological recovery and social integration.”213 186. Based on the testimonies of Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara, José Antonio Movilla Vergara and Jenny Movilla Vergara, Mr. Movilla’s children, the Court finds that, in the specific circumstances of this case, as they were children at the time of their father’s forced disappearance, they were especially affected, given their experiences in an environment of suffering and uncertainty due to failure to determine their father’s whereabouts. 214 In the wake of Pedro Movilla’s forced disappearance, his children developed feelings of loss, intense fear, uncertainty, distress, and pain, which varied and intensified depending on the age and particular circumstances of each one. 187. Consequently, bearing in mind the particular characteristics of this case, the Court finds that Pedro Movilla’s forced disappearance, and the failure to investigate what occurred, had a particular impact on the rights of the child acknowledged in Article 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara, José Antonio Movilla Vergara and Jenny Movilla Vergara. They also undermined the right to protection of the family of all Mr. Movilla’s relatives. 188. Therefore, and taking into account the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility (supra paras. 14, 17, 32, 34, 39 and 172), this Court finds that the State has violated the rights to personal integrity and to the protection of the family, recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2), and 17 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo, Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara, José Antonio Movilla Vergara, Jenny del Carmen Movilla Vergara, Leonor María Movilla de Sierra, María de Jesús Movilla Barrera, Florencia Movilla Galarcio, Rita Candelaria Movilla Galarcio, Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio, Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla, Raúl Rafael Ramos Movilla, Ricardo Adolfo Ramos Movilla, Franklin Hander Movilla, Dominga Josefa Movilla Galarcio, Iván Darío Vega Movilla, Nery del Carmen Vega Movilla, Ana Karina Vega Movilla and María Isabel Carriazo de Román. Furthermore, the State violated the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara, José Antonio Movilla Vergara and Jenny Movilla Vergara. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Thematic Report 19 (E/CN.4/1984/21), December 9, 1983. 212 Cf. Statement of Doria Yanette Bautista Montañéz (evidence file, folios 11928 to 11939). 213 Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Thematic Report 25 (A/HRC/WGEID/98/1) . 214 Cf., in a similar vein, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 312. 211 50