Fernando García’s family, namely: Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García. To this end, the Court will divide its analysis according to the violations alleged to their detriment, as follows: (a) the right to personal integrity, the rights of the family 239 and the rights of the child, 240 and (b) freedom of thought and expression and freedom of association. A) The right to personal integrity, the rights of the family, and the rights of the child 159. The Commission and the representatives considered that the State had violated the right to personal integrity of the members of Edgar Fernando García’s family. The Commission held that the harm was due to the refusal of the authorities to respond to the remedies filed to obtain an effective investigation, and also to the “harassment and threats [they received] from State agents” owing to the steps they took to search for justice and the whereabouts of Edgar Fernando García. The State expressed its “partial acknowledgement” of this violation, because the actions to investigate and punish those responsible must be analyzed taking into account the complexity of the facts and the difficulties it has faced. In addition, it argued that “the progress made as regards justice in this case […] has a positive impact on the mental and moral integrity” of his family members. 160. Regarding the violation of the rights of the family and the rights of the child in this case, in its Merits Report, the Commission stated that “it had insufficient evidence to justify an independent violation of these rights.” However, in its final written observations, it indicated that the information provided by the representatives and Mrs. Montenegro during the public hearing “revealed that evidence existed for the Court to assess the possibility of considering these violations.” The representatives indicated that, at the time of Edgar Fernando García’s disappearance, he was married and had a 20-month old daughter, thus the State failed to comply “with its societal purposes [by not protecting the right to a family] and leaving Alejandra García Montenegro virtually orphaned.” For its part, the State indicated that the representatives had again argued the violation of these rights even though, in its Merits Report, the Commission had concluded that it had insufficient evidence to declare their violation. Therefore, it expressed its “total opposition” to the Court declaring the violation of these rights. 161. The Court has considered that, in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim’s family is a direct result of this phenomenon, which causes them severe suffering owing to the act itself, which is increased, among other factors, due to the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation in order to clarify what happened. 241 In addition, the Court has established that the absence of the truth regarding the whereabouts of a victim of forced disappearance entails a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the closest family members, 242 which leads to the presumption of harm to their mental and moral integrity. 243 239 Article 17(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” 240 Article 19 of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” 241 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 270. 242 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 114, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 270.. 57