102 as the demeaning physical conditions endured by Gladys [Espinoza], rendered [the visits] made by Mrs. Gonzáles profoundly harrowing, and seriously affected the latter’s emotional and physical health.” In 2010, Teodora Gonzáles’ health failed completely and she died, to the distress of the whole family. 294. Regarding the criminal proceedings faced by Gladys Espinoza, the representatives indicated that her family had tried to find and present various documents for the victims legal defense, and were mistreated by the authorities who “obstructed their efforts, […] causing them great suffering.” According to the representatives, more than 19 years after the facts occurred, the absence of effective remedies had caused Gladys Espinoza’s next of kin suffering and anguish that constituted a violation of the right to personal and moral integrity. Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State of Peru had violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, Teodora Gonzáles and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles. In their final written arguments, the representatives argued that the determination of when the victims’ next of kin may also be considered victims does not depend only on the type of violation in question, but also on the harm that the said next of kin have suffered, taking into account the elements described. 295. The State indicated that “a domestic criminal investigation has been opened into the presumed torture and rape of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles in order to investigate the facts and to punish those presumably responsible.” In addition, it affirmed that “the visiting restrictions established in the anti-terrorism laws have already been eliminated, because these laws have been annulled by a judgment of the Peruvian Constitutional Court; in other words, the prison conditions during the first half of the 1990s were rectified by the Peruvian State itself by eliminating that prison regime. Moreover, the petitioner left the Yanamayo Prison on April 17, 2001, and was transferred to the Aucayama Prison in Huaral, to the north of Lima, and she is currently in the Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison.” In its final oral and written arguments, the State indicated that it was aware that it was for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to determine the presumed victims; however, it added that this aspect should be standardized, because while in the case of J. v. Peru it was determined that only Ms. J. was a victim and not her parents or siblings, in the instant case, which is very similar, the Commission had argued that the next of kin of the person directly harmed by the State’s actions are also presumed victims. B) Considerations of the Court 296. In numerous cases the Court has considered that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. 472 In this regard, the Court has indicated that it can declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations by applying a presumption iuris tantum with regard to mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, and permanent companions (hereinafter “direct next of kin), provided this is in keeping with the particular circumstances of the case. Regarding such direct next of kin, it is for the State to disprove this presumption. 473 This presumption has been applied, for example, in cases of massacres, enforced disappearances of 472 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 279. 473 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 227.