70 c. several victims' next of kin have been threatened while searching for their beloved ones and due to the actions they have undertaken in their quest for justice; d. after the disappearance of the victims, their next of kin have faced stigmatization, being branded as "terrorists"; e. for a while, military courts assumed the hearing of the case, which prevented the next of kin from taking part in the investigations. Likewise, the petitions for habeas corpus filed by the next of kin were ineffective (supra paras. 111 and 112). In other cases, the lack of effective remedies has been regarded by the Court as an additional source of suffering and anxiety for the victims and their next of kin.108 The delay in the investigations, which were also incomplete and ineffective for the punishment of all those responsible for the facts has exacerbated next of kin's feelings of impotence, and f. on the other hand, because the remains of eight out of the 10 mentioned victims are still missing, their next of kin have not had the possibility of duly honoring their beloved ones, even though they have received symbolic burial. In this respect, the Court recalls that continued deprivation of the truth regarding the fate of a disappeared person constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment against close next of kin.109 126. The facts of the instant case allow the conclusion that the violation of next of kin's personal integrity, as a consequence of the forced disappearance and extra-legal execution of the victims, flows from the situations and circumstances some of them had to go through, during and after said disappearance, as well as from the general context in which the events occurred. Many of these situations and their effects, fully understood in the complexity of the forced disappearance, will persist for as long as some of the verified factors prevail.110 The next of kin still present physical and mental sequels of the facts described above and the events have made an impact on their social and work relations and altered their families' dynamics. 127. The Court considers it necessary to point out that victim Heráclides Pérez-Meza lived with his aunt, Ms. Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo for seven years after he moved to Lima to pursue university studies. Furthermore, victim Dora Oyague-Fierro lived with her father and paternal aunt and uncle, to wit, Ms. Carmen Oyague-Velazco and Mr. Jaime OyagueVelazco, ever since she was a child. Besides, victim Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza was raised by his father and by Ms. Bertila Bravo-Trujillo. In the three cases, once the victims had disappeared, said next of kin began looking for them and filed, in some cases, legal actions before the authorities; that is to say, they faced the obstructive judicial apparatus, and suffered its direct effects (supra paras. 80(19) to 80(21) and 80(24)). 108 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 101; Case of the Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 385, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 158. 109 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 101; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 267, and Case of Trujillo-Oroza. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114. 110 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 103.