remained a burden they carried, a responsibility, an irreparable scar that differentiated them from other people. André Herzog emphasized that the loss of his father had had numerous consequences on his personal and affective relationships, and described the pain, the exposure, and the burden to the whole family of each new judicial proceeding filed in the search for truth and justice. 347. The representatives concluded that all these facts, taken as a whole, had violated the mental and emotional integrity of Vladimir Herzog’s family, and entailed the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Article 5 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Zora, Clarice, André and Ivo Herzog. 348. The State acknowledged that the State conduct of the arbitrary imprisonment, torture and death of Vladimir Herzog had imposed great pain on his family and, therefore, acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention. Nevertheless, the State argued that it had made numerous efforts to redress the harm suffered. 349. The State understood that even though all human rights violations may have detrimental effects on the individual, this does not mean that every violation of a right recognized in the Convention entails a violation of Article 5. It indicated that the supposed lack of judicial protection did not involve a violation of Article 5, concluded that, if lack of judicial protection was not established in Article 5, the alleged violation of this article could not be substantiated, because that would create a premise that was not established in the Convention. 350. It argued that, although it could be understood that the denial of the truth had violated Article 5 of the Convention, this had not occurred in the present case because much of the information provided by the parties in relation to the deprivation of liberty, torture and death of Vladimir Herzog had been gathered from proceedings and publications that the State itself had undertaken to try and alleviate the anguish that could arise from the absence of criminal responsibility. The State also pointed out that this case did not refer to a disappeared person whose fate was unknown. B. Considerations of the Court 351. In numerous cases, the Court has considered that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. 386 In this regard, the Court has considered that the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin has been violated owing to the additional suffering they have endured as a result of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and because of the subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts. 387 In addition, in cases that involve a gross violation of human rights, such as massacres, 388 forced disappearances, 389 386 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 249. Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, para. 249. 387 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15. 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 146. 388 389 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 114, and Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 274. 90