69 121. In view of the foregoing, and as empowered by Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court believes that in the instant case there are no facts leading to the conclusion that the State violated Article 3 of the Convention. c) The right to personal integrity of the victims' next of kin 122. The State has acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora OyagueFierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa and Felipe Flores-Chipana (supra paras. 51 and 52). However, it did not make the same acknowledgement in respect of their next of kin, which was alleged by the Commission and the representatives. Therefore, inasmuch as the dispute over this issue is still open (supra para. 58), in this section the Court will determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violation of said next of kin's right to personal integrity. 123. In the instant case, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that in cases involving forced disappearance of people, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim's next of kin is, precisely, a direct consequence of that event, which causes them severe suffering and is made worse by the continued refusal of state authorities to supply information on the victim's whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation to elucidate the facts.106 124. According to its jurisprudence,107 the Court shall now determine whether the suffering endured as a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against the victims, the situations some of them had to live through within that context, and the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities, violates the right to personal integrity of the victims' next of kin, in light of the facts of the instant case. 125. During the detention and disappearance of the victims, their next of kin embarked on a search in different institutions, in which authorities denied the victims' detention. Additionally, the Court has verified the experiences the next of kin had to go through later on: a. After the clandestine graves were discovered, some next of kin were present during the exhumations and even helped to make them. The authorities gave the remains of some of the victims to their next of kin "in milk cartons;" b. After the disappearance of the victims, some of their next of kin dropped the activities they had been performing up to then. Indeed, after the disappearance of Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, his brother Rosario Carpio Cardoso-Figueroa was exiled for more than a year and a half and his sister Viviana Mariños was also exiled for 12 years; 106 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 97; Case of the Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 340, and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 83, para. 61. 107 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 96; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 83, para. 60, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 2, paras. 144 and 146.