American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García. 168. In addition, regarding the alleged threats and harassment suffered by Edgar Fernando García’s family, the Court recalls that, owing to its competence ratione temporis, it can only examine those events that occurred after the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court observes that the evidence provided by the parties 252 reveals that Edgar Fernando García’s wife and daughter were threatened and harassed because of the steps they took to obtain justice and to find Mr. García. These threats were mainly related to Mrs. Montenegro’s membership in the GAM, which meant that they lived in a situation of insecurity and fear at home and at work and, therefore, had to seek protection from Peace Brigades International. According to Mrs. Montenegro’s testimony, this situation lasted for nine years, until 1993, when the practice of forced disappearances presumably ceased, and the transition period began. The Court notes that the CEH determined that Mrs. Montenegro had been the target of death threats and surveillance. 253 169. In this regard, the Court has held that the mere risk that a conduct prohibited by Article 5 of the Convention may occur, when this is sufficiently real and imminent, may in itself conflict with the right to personal integrity; 254 hence, it considers that the threats and harassment suffered by Nineth Montenegro Cottom and Alejandra García Montenegro constitute an additional violation of their right to personal integrity. 170. Furthermore, regarding the alleged violation of the rights of the family and the rights of the child, the Court reiterates that the presumed victims or their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Commission’s Merits Report. 255 However, the Court considers that the arguments submitted by the representatives refer to harm that was essentially examined by the Court when it declared the violation of the personal integrity of the members of Edgar Fernando García’s family. Hence, it does not consider it necessary make a further ruling in this regard. B) The right to know the truth 171. In addition, in this case, the representatives argued the violation of the right to the truth of the next of kin of Edgar Fernando García. In this regard, Guatemala indicated that it was not in order to declare its non-compliance, because this right was not established in the American Convention. 172. First, the Court reiterates its case law regarding the possibility that the presumed victims or their representatives may cite rights other than those included in the Commission’s report (supra para. 170). 252 Cf. Testimony given by Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case; affidavit prepared by Alejandra García Montenegro on April 20, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folio 805), and complaint filed by Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom before the PDH on January 22, 1988 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome I, annex 16, folio 213). 253 Cf. CEH, supra, volume IV, p. 237, para. 4532; Testimony given by Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case and affidavit prepared by Alejandra García Montenegro on April 20, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folio 805). 254 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para.165, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 176. 255 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 47. 60