42 C.6 Right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of the next of kin of Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña 123. The Commission argued that the Bolivian State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of Marta Castro Mendoza and Tito, Rebeca, and Raquel, all bearing the surname Ibsen Castro, given their suffering as a result of the facts of the instant case. As to Marta Castro Mendoza and Tito Ibsen Castro, the Commission emphasized that "they visited Mr. Ibsen Peña in the El Pari detention center, […] where they found him to have been beaten and whose demeanor indicated that he presaged his fate.” In addition, it mentioned that after the disappearance of her husband, Mrs. Marta Castro “went to the Bar Association […] to ask for help,” and the children of Mr. Ibsen Peña carried out a "search campaign” for clues as to the whereabouts of their brother and father before several State institutions. Additionally, the Commission indicated that the next of kin of Messrs. Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña “have had the burden of proving [their] […] disappearance, and of moving forward the search for their remains, [and…] they have had to face the lack of will on the part of the judiciary to investigate such facts.” In this respect, it emphasized that "Rebeca Ibsen Castro [,] in representation of her family, filed a request for a joinder to the criminal complaint which had prompted the investigation of the forced disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, […];” however, the Ibsen family “remains in a state of uncertainty regarding the events, and impunity continues to prevail with regard to the facts, adding to the pain already felt due to the loss of their loved ones.” 124. The representatives agreed with the arguments mentioned by the Commission and argued, in addition, that in view of the facts of the instant case, Tito, Rebeca and Raquel Ibsen Castro experienced a “lack of access to health and education” and that the latter had “changes” in her life which “were a determining factor for her to be a frightened person.” Furthermore, they alleged that both Tito and Rebeca Ibsen were subjected to “persecution, threats and […] attacks against their […] life and personal integrity” in their search for justice for the disappearances of their father and brother, and that the Ibsen family had the "need to hide within [the] country.” Finally, they argued that, "due to the fact he has worked since he was a boy,” Tito Ibsen Castro “suffered a physical injury that caused him to lose a finger from the left hand.” 125. In turn, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña (supra paras. 5 and 24). 126. The Court has considered in numerous cases that the next of kin of the victims of violations of human rights can be, at the same time, victims.154 Specifically, in cases that involve the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to psychic and moral integrity of the next of kin of the victim is a direct consequence of that phenomenon, which causes them severe suffering due to the same act, which is increased, among other factors, by the constant failure of the state authorities to provide information regarding the whereabouts of the victim or to start an effective 154 Cf. Case of Castillo-Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34., Operative Paragraph four; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 161, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 220.