-34ARRIETA, NORMA PÉREZ CHÁVEZ AND OF LUÍS BEJARANO LAURA (Article 5, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 142. The Commission argued that the violation by the State of the rights to life, to personal integrity, to judicial guarantees and to an effective recourse to the detriment of the alleged victims, as well as the delay in the payment of non-pecuniary compensation, had created in the family members of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta, Ms. Pérez Chávez and in Mr. Bejarano Laura, “suffering, anguish, insecurity, frustration and powerlessness vis-à-vis the State authorities.” The representatives maintained that the family members of the alleged victims had “suffered greatly from the unexpected loss of their loved ones and from the serious injuries” caused to one of the victims. They also indicated that such suffering had “heightened as a consequence of the numerous difficulties encountered during the proceedings of the criminal trial […] which represented an additional suffering caused by the loss of or the injuries to the [alleged] victims,” which has not been remedied. 143. The State alleged that it had investigated the incident and, therefore, it could not be considered responsible for the alleged violation of the right to persoal integrity of the family members of the alleged victims. It added that “it is probable that some of the suffering of the family members of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, as well as of Luís Alberto Bejarano Laura, are similar to that of the family members of victims of similar cases,” but because “the perpetrator of the incident was convicted by the competent national jurisdictional authorities and payment of compensation was made, the events of the present case have been totally remedied,” and thus the State, pursuant to international law, is not obliged to repair the family members. B. Considerations of the Court 144. The Court has held that certain violations of human rights may cause suffering and anguish to the family members of the alleged victims, in addition to a feeling of insecurity, frustration and impotence, and has held that such suffering to the detriment of the mental and moral integrity of the family members constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.130 It is, therefore, an 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 subsequent acts or omissions of the State authorities in relation to the facts.131 145. The Court considers it relevant to recall that although it has determined that a violation of the right to personal integrity can be declared with regard to the direct next of kin of the victims of certain human rights violations by applying a presumption iuris tantum for parents, children, spouses and permanent companions, provided that this responds to the specific circumstances of the case, as has happened, for example, in the cases of some massacres, forced disappearances of persons or extrajudicial executions.132 Therefore, a violation to personal integrity cannot be presumed in all types of cases, nor with regard to all family members. Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 114 and 116 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 202. 130 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 144 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 201. 131 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 202. 132