what happened to the presumed victim and, also, of the alleged impunity surrounding the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, which was a result of the absence of the prosecution and punishment of all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts. Based on these considerations, the representatives concluded that the State had violated Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this international instrument to the detriment of the closest members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family. 225. During the public hearing, the representatives argued that it had been proved that the lives and mental well-being of the next of kin of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been affected by experiencing not only the disappearance of the victim, but also owing to the insufficient measures taken by the State to provide an unequivocal response that allowed the truth of the facts to be known, and especially, with regard to the discovery of the victim and the punishment of those responsible. The closeness of the relationship with the victim is an important factor in order to determine the impact of the events on the family members, together with their exposure to the violent act, their age, the type of personality, the kind of relationship the person had with the victim, and the system of emotional support relationships, among them. The representatives asserted that, in this case, the victim’s direct relationship had been proved with his permanent companion, his children who were minors at the time, and his mother, for all of whom he was the main source of support. They also argued that the disappearance had a serious impact on his siblings, because he was one of the youngest ones, and they have remained in uncertainty as a result of the impossibility of obtaining closure to a mourning process because they do not know the final resting place of the victim, and because of the impunity surrounding the facts. Furthermore, the representatives of the victim stated that the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had also resulted in some of his family members being unable to conclude their elementary studies or undertake either vocational or university studies. 226. The State considered it probable that some of the suffering of the members of Mr. Osorio Rivera’s family was similar to that of next of kin of victims of enforced disappearance involving the State’s international responsibility, which had not been proved in this case. Thus, the State did not deny the existence of the harm to the right to integrity of the next of kin of Mr. Osorio Rivera owing to the presumed disappearance of their family member during all this time, but since the State’s international responsibility for the enforced disappearance had not been proved, the State was not obliged to make reparation to the family members. Furthermore, the State argued that it had conducted investigations into the events denounced; therefore, it indicated that it could not be considered responsible for the violation of the right to integrity of the next of kin. The State indicated that, at the domestic level, owing to an administrative proceeding, the next of kin of Mr. Osorio Rivera were included on the Unified Register of Victims and may be considered beneficiaries of the different reparation programs established by the High-level Multisectoral Commission responsible for monitoring the State’s actions and policies in the spheres of peace, collective reparation and national reconciliation. In conclusion, the State asked the Court to declare that the State was not responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity contained in Article 5 of the American Convention, with regard to the members of Mr. Osorio Rivera’s family. In its final written arguments, the State argued, based on the supreme final judgment of April 17, 2013, that it considered that the mistreatment alleged by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives had not been proved, and that it had not violated the said article to the detriment of the next of kin of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. B. Considerations of the Court 227. This Court has considered that, in cases involving the alleged enforced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right of the victims’ next of kin to mental and moral integrity is a direct result of this phenomenon, which causes them severe 81