25 established in Article I(b)) of the IACFDP. b) Clarifications regarding Article 5(1) of the Convention 86. As to the relatives of Renato Ticona, the Court notes that it has been proven that the next-of-kin have taken several steps before different authorities, in order to learn about the fate and whereabouts of Renato Ticona, without finding any favorable answer (supra para. 52, 74, 75 and 83) Furthermore, in the testimonies presented by each one of the relatives, they coincided in asserting that they have been through physical, mental and moral distress. Specifically, they pointed out that they have been emotionally disturbed and that they have suffered from a permanent anguish; mainly, because they do not know what happened to Renato Ticona and were unable to bury his mortal remains (supra para 33). Moreover, it springs from the expert opinion rendered before this Court by the expert witnesses, Andrés Guatire Hirsh and Zulema Callejas Guzmán, the damage caused to the relatives as a result of the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona, the steps taken to locate him and the family situation after such disappearance (supra para. 32(e)). 87. The Court recalls that in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin is a direct result, precisely, of this phenomenon, which causes them severe anguish owing to the act itself, which is increased, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim or to open an effective investigation to clarify what occurred.74 88. In this sense, this Tribunal considers that the existence of a closed family bond, plus the efforts made searching justice in order to know the fate and whereabouts of Renato Ticona, as well as the inactivity of the state authorities or the lack of effectiveness in the measures adopted to shed light on the facts and eventually, punish the responsible (supra para. 85 and infra para. 145) have violated the mental and moral integrity of the relatives of Renato Ticona. As a result, the Court concludes, taking into account the acquiescence made by the State, that Bolivia is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Honoria Estrada de Ticona, César Ticona Olivares, Hugo Ticona Estrada, Betzy Ticona Estrada and Rodo Ticona Estrada. B) Regarding Hugo Ticona Estrada a) Convention Clarifications regarding Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the 89. In the Report on Merits Nº 112/06 (Case Nº 12.527), the Commission concluded, in general terms, that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of the relatives of Renato Ticona; however, it did not specifically decide on the alleged violation of said Articles to the 74 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C Nº 36 para. 114; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C Nº 153, para. 97; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú, supra note 43, para. 123.