at the international level, that threats are brought to light for the purpose of making these supposed actions fit into the State’s presumed violation of the right to personal integrity. B. Considerations of the Court 201. The Court has stated, on many occasions that the families of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.295 On this point the Court has considered that the right to psychological and moral integrity of the family members of victims has been violated owing to the additional suffering that they have endured as a result of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and because of the subsequently actions and omissions by the State authorities in relation to the facts.296 202. In its case law, the Court has determined that certain human rights violations could cause the family members “suffering and anguish in addition to insecurity, frustration and impotence in the face of the failure of public authorities to investigate the facts”297 and has concluded that such suffering, to the detriment of the psychological and moral integrity of the family members, could constitute a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 298 Moreover, the Court has ruled that in certain cases of grave human rights violations, it is possible to presume the damage caused to the psychological and moral integrity of the closest family members, applying the presumption of juris tantum with respect to mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, permanent partners, whenever this is appropriate to the specific circumstances of the case.299 In the case of these family members, it is up to the State to refute such presumption. 203. The family considered as victims in this case are the direct family members, namely: Mariana Lubina López (mother),300 Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández (spouse), Carlos Antonio Luna Valle (son), César Augusto Luna Valle (son), Lubina Mariana Luna Valle (daughter), Allan Miguel Luna Valle (son), José Fredy Luna Valle (son) and Roger Herminio Luna Valle (son). However, based on the circumstances of this case, the Court has considered that since it does not involve a grave violation of human rights in the terms of its case law, the violation of the family’s personal integrity, as regards the pain and suffering that occurred, must be proven.301 204. Therefore, the Court will assess the existence of a particularly close link between the family members and the victim in this case in order to determine if their right to personal integrity was affected and consequently if there was a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. It will also determine whether the presumed victims have experienced suffering resulting from the facts of the case or due to the subsequent actions or omissions of the State authorities in that regard.302 295 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C, No. 34, Operative Paragraph Four and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 156. 296 156. Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra, paras. 144 and 146 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 297 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C, No. 36, para. 114 and Case of García Family, paras. 162 and 164. 298 Cf. Case of Blake, supra, para. 116 and Case of García and Family, supra, paras. 162, 164 and 167. 299 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra, para. 119 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 157. 300 Mrs. Mariana Lubina López died on May 8, 2005, according to Death Certificate No. 1520-2005-00014 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, page 4115). 301 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra, para. 232 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 158. 302 Cf. Case of Blake, supra, para. 114 and Case of García and Family, supra, paras. 161 and 162. 61