51 Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, 178 to the detriment of those persons. B.3. Right to personal integrity and protection of the family to the detriment of the relatives of the victims of forced disappearance 161. The Court has repeatedly affirmed that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. Likewise, the Court has considered that in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the victim’s next of kin is a direct consequence of this situation. This causes them severe suffering due to the act itself, which is increased, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information about the whereabouts of the victim or to carry out an effective investigation to clarify what happened. These effects lead to the presumption of harm to the psychological and moral integrity of the next of kin in cases of forced disappearance. In previous cases, the Court has established that a presumption iuris tantum is applied with respect to mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses, permanent partners, as well as brothers and sisters of the disappeared victims, unless proven otherwise by the specific circumstances of the case. 179 162. The Court has declared the international responsibility of Guatemala for the forced disappearance of 22 victims in this case. The State, beyond the arguments presented (supra paras. 128 to 130), did not provide evidence to refute the presumption iuris tantum regarding the severe suffering of the next of kin in the particular circumstances of this case, nor did it refute the fact that they were the relatives of the disappeared victims. Therefore, the Court considers that the presumption of harm to their psychological and moral integrity is sufficiently well-founded. 163. The Court considers that the next of kin of the 22 persons that have been victims of forced disappearance are victims of the violation of their personal integrity due to the suffering caused by not knowing what happened to their loved ones, the ongoing bereavement, the refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the fate or whereabouts of the victims, which would allow their relatives to determine with certainty their life or death, and the investigative negligence of the part of the State authorities to respond to the complaints and investigate what happened. 164. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the 22 victims of forced disappearance. The names of these persons are found in Annex I of this judgment. 165. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to protection of the family, the Court notes, first, that in the instant case some victims of forced disappearance had close family ties with each other, that is, they were fathers, mothers, children, brothers and nephews, so that the families of these victims had to endure the pain of forced disappearance of several of their members, thus increasing the impact of what they had experienced. 180 Second, in a great majority of the cases, family members witnessed the detention of the victims in or near their own homes, by State security agents, and that was the last time they saw them alive. Consequently, the manner in which these arrests were carried out caused a clear perception of defenselessness in the families 178 Where pertinent, Article I.a) of the ICFDP states that: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake: a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency, exception or suspension of individual guarantees.” 179 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 162, and Case of Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 274. 180 This is the case of: José Cruz Mendoza Sucup and his son Juan Mendoza Alvarado; María Concepción Chen Sic and her son Marcelo Sic Chen; Adrián García Manuel, his son Hugo García Depaz and his nephew Abraham Alvarado Tecú (or Agapito Alvarado Depáz); and Manuel de Jesús Alarcón Morente and his brother Edmundo or Raymundo Alarcón Morente.