VIII.3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE MEMBERS OF JOFFRE ANTONIO AROCA PALMA’S FAMILY, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 81 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 110. The Commission argued that the members of Mr. Aroca Palma’s family had suffered greatly because of the way he met his death, and given the fact that the only sentence handed down had not been executed and the investigations regarding the other police officers involved had not concluded. It affirmed that the State was internationally responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 111. The representative pointed out, as Cynthia Aroca Palma had observed at the public hearing, that the members of Mr. Aroca Palma’s family were victims, not only because of the suffering caused by his death, but also in view of their tireless efforts to obtain justice and make the State fulfill its obligation. 82 112. The State maintained that since “the actions undertaken by public officials to investigate the facts, and prosecute and punish those responsible [...] was a restitution of [the] right,” “the personal integrity of the members of Joffre Aroca’s family was protected at all times within the national jurisdiction.” It concluded that the State “has demonstrated, through its legal order and actions, constant protection of the right to personal integrity.” B. Considerations of the Court 113. The Court has held on several occasions that the members of the families of victims of human rights violations can be victims in their own right. 83 The Court has considered that it is possible to declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of “direct family members” of victims and other individuals with close ties to those victims, owing to the additional suffering they have experienced as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and due to the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities in relation to those events, 84 taking into account, among other matters, the steps taken to obtain justice and the existence of a close family relationship. 85 Thus, there is a violation of the right to personal integrity, applying a presumption of iuris tantum with regard to family members such as the parents, children, spouses and permanent companions (the direct next of kin) of the victims of certain human rights violations, provided that this responds to the particular circumstances in the case. 86 With respect to those family members, it is up to the State to disprove said presumption, which is appropriate, among other circumstances, in cases of extrajudicial executions. 87 Article 5 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. Argument put forward in the final written arguments. 83 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 84 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 85 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 163, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 86 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 7, 2009. Series C No. 201, para. 146, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 185. 87 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 146, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 185. 81 82 23