49 D. Violation of the rights to family and humane treatment [personal integrity] to the detriment of Mr. Juan Gelman. 133. The facts also affected Juan Gelman's right to personal integrity, in particular, the right to respect his psychological integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, given that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may be, in turn, victims, 155 and in cases that involve the enforced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the family of the victim is a direct consequence of this phenomenon, causing them severe pain as a consequence of the act itself, that which is heightened, among other factors, by the continued refusal of State authorities to provide information about the whereabouts of the victim or to initiate an effective investigation to ascertain that which occurred.156 Moreover, the deprivation of access to the truth regarding the whereabouts of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel and inhumane treatment to the close relatives157 and which entails harm to the psychological and moral integrity of the direct next of kin of the victims of certain human rights violations. 158 134. The violation of the right to personal integrity in the case of Juan Gelman is also apparent, due to the consequences he suffered because of the facts of the case and to the search for justice. In his testimony before the Court, Mr. Juan Gelman stated that not knowing the truth of what occurred to María Claudia affected him deeply; and that besides the fact that he was deprived of the lives of his son and of his daughter in law, he was also deprived of 23 years of his granddaughter’s life, whom he did not see grow up, take her first steps, nor hear her say the words “grandpa”, to which, all of the above, created a feeling of emptiness, which he, as well as Macarena, are both trying to overcome and surpass looking forward towards the future, as they face the impossibility of recreating the past. Expert witness Deutsch pointed out that Juan Gelman can speak about the facts, but that it is difficult to express his feelings as a “matter of double modesty: personal, and also for not (emotionally) carrying the other one.” Besides imagining the last moments of Marcelo and Maria Claudia’s lives, he faced some obstacles to get her granddaughter’s search going, due to an inability to focus, and he has chosen not to                                                                                                                                                                       supra note 8, pages 5006 and 5007, and Resolution of the President of the Republic No. 858/2000, supra note 23, which highlights the need to "take steps possible to determine the status of the Detained Disappeared Persons in the de facto regime, as well as children disappeared under the same conditions," page 277. 155 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, Punto Resolutivo cuarto; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 126, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 235. 156 Cf Case of Blake V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 126, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 241. 157 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza, supra note 12, para. 114; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 130, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 240. 158 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 127, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 235.