82 their loved ones and the failure to clarify the truth that still characterizes the facts of this case, “which has made it impossible for them to identify and receive the mortal remains of their loved ones and, thus, to give them a proper burial.” In this sense, they considered that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of Zósimo Hilario Quispe, Marcelo Hilario Quispe, Gregorio Hilario Quispe, Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque, Ana de la Cruz Carhuapoma, Víctor Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Viviano Hilario Mancha, Dolores Morán Paucar, Justiniano Guillén Ccanto, Victoria Riveros Valencia, Marcelina Guillén Riveros, Marino Huamaní Vergara and Alejandro Huamaní Robles. 273. The State argued that it could not be held responsible for the violation of the right to integrity of the alleged victims’ next of kin. In this regard, it argued that it is probable that some of the suffering of the next of kin is similar to that of the victims’ relatives in comparable cases; however, in the instant case, significant progress was achieved in determining those responsible for the death of the fifteen members of the Santa Bárbara peasant community. It also indicated that it would be making all the necessary efforts to clarify the facts and to determine those responsible, as well as to ensure the capture of the two fugitive defendants. It pointed out that, given that the perpetrator of the crimes had been convicted by the competent national judicial authorities, and had been ordered to pay compensation, this would indicate the State’s willingness to make reparations. In its final written arguments, the State rejected claims that this case involved alleged forced disappearance, insisting that it constituted extrajudicial execution. It also expressed its surprise at “the attempt to claim the violation of the next of kin’s right to the truth by arguing that that they did not obtain access to justice,” thereby ignoring the results of the investigation that was reopened in 2005 and the determination of the proven facts by the National Criminal Chamber, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice. A. Considerations of the Court 274. The Court has repeatedly affirmed that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. 325 The Court has also considered that in cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the victim’s next of kin is a direct consequence of this situation. This causes them severe suffering due to the act itself, which is intensified, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the State authorities to provide information about the whereabouts of the victim or to conduct an effective investigation to clarify what happened. 326 These effects lead to a presumption of harm to the psychological and moral integrity of the next of kin in cases of forced disappearance. 327 In previous cases, this Court has established that a iuris tantum presumption is applied with respect to mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, spouses and permanent partners of the disappeared victims, unless proven otherwise by the specific circumstances of the case. 328 Also, it its most recent case law, the Court has considered that, in the context of forced disappearance, this presumption is also applicable to the siblings of the disappeared victims, unless the contrary is demonstrated by the specific circumstances of the case. 329 325 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 443. 326 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 533. 327 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 Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 227. 328 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 146, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 444. 329 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253, para. 286, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 533.