40 119. In numerous cases the Court has found that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may themselves be victims.205 In cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, the Court has considered that it is possible to presume harm to the mental and moral integrity of certain family members.206 This presumption is established iuris tantum with regard to mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, spouses and permanent life partners, provided that this responds to the specific circumstances of the case.207 The Court has further established that, in the context of forced disappearance, this presumption also applies to the brothers and sisters of disappeared victims, unless demonstrated to the contrary by the specific circumstances of the case.208 In the case of such family members, it is for the State to refute this presumption.209 As to the rest of the presumed victims, the Court must assess whether the evidence in the file proves any impairment of their right to personal integrity.210 120. In the instant case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity of all the disappeared victims’ next of kin named by the Commission. Thus, bearing in mind the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court presumes the violation of the right to humane treatment of all the next of kin indicated in paragraph 34 supra. 121. Together with the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court observes that the testimony and the expert opinion received (supra paras. 38 and 43) reveal that, in one way or another, the personal integrity of the victims’ next of kin was affected by one or several of the following situations: (i) they suffered personal, physical and emotional after-effects resulting from the disappearance of a loved one; (ii) they suffered an irreversible change in their immediate family unit and family life, affecting, inter alia, significant sibling relationships; (iii) they were involved in several actions, including the search for justice or information on the victims’ whereabouts; (iv) the uncertainty surrounding the whereabouts of the victims has prevented grieving, prolonging the psychological effects of the disappearance on the next of kin, and (v) the State’s failure to investigate and collaborate in efforts to determine the whereabouts of the victims and those responsible for the disappearances has exacerbated the different impacts suffered by the next of kin. These circumstances have had effects that persist over time and continue to this day, owing to the ongoing uncertainty regarding the whereabouts of the disappeared children Emelinda Lorena Hernández, José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala. 122. At the same time, in its case law, the Court has established that withholding the truth about the whereabouts of a victim of forced disappearance constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for close family members.211 In addition, the Court has considered that the constant refusal Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 233. 205 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra, para. 161. 206 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, para. 270, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra, para. 161. 207 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 286, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 227. 208 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra, para. 161. 209 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 127, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha Do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 235. 210 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 301. 211