surviving victims and family members due to the suffering caused by the absence of an investigation and the impunity in which the case remains. They also indicated that it had been the victims, through their representatives, who had advanced the proceedings, and that the authorities had continued acting in an omissive manner. According to the representatives, all of this has resulted in profound suffering and a feeling of helplessness in the face of the certainty that those who had executed and disappeared their family members, caused their displacement and family separation, and destroyed their possessions, leaving them without anything, remained in the most absolute impunity. 119. The State did not submit specific arguments in this regard. B. Considerations of the Court 120. On reiterated occasions,200 the Court has asserted that the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, be considered victims. 201 Similarly, it has indicated that it is possible to declare the violation of the right to integrity of the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations applying a iuris tantum presumption with regard to mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, and spouses and permanent companions, provided this is in keeping with the particular circumstances of the case.202 In relation to these family members, it corresponds to the State to disprove this presumption,203 which is applicable in cases involving massacres and extrajudicial executions204 with regard to family members of those who died. When this presumption is not applicable, the Court must assess, first, the existence of a particularly close connection between the family member and the victim in the case that allow it to establish a violation of their personal integrity and, then, whether the evidence in the case file proves a violation of personal integrity.205 121. Additionally, in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, the Court has asserted that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim’s next of kin is a direct consequence of this crime, which causes them severe suffering, which is increased by the constant refusal of the state authorities to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts, or to open an effective investigation to clarify what happened. 122. In this case, it has been proved – and the State has acknowledged this – that on April 28 and 29, 1982, a massacre was perpetrated by members of the army that resulted in the death of at least 38 people, including men, women and children, while 14 people were disappeared. To date, the families ignore the whereabouts of many of these victims. The Court recalls that “the continued deprivation of the truth regarding the fate of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel, Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 327, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 262. 200 This is based on the circumstances of the case, in view of the suffering caused by the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and due to the subsequent acts and omission of the state authorities in relation to the facts (cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 351). 201 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012, Series C No. 253, para. 286, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 207. 202 This presumption results in a reversal of the burden of proof because it is not necessary to prove the violation of the rights of these “direct family members,” but rather the State must disprove this (cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 207). 203 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra, para. 146; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 218, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 351. 204 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 328. 205 38