71 (d) As indicated above and as will be examined below, in the instant case, there was a de facto impossibility of filing recourses in favor of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers Benjamín and Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba at the time of their detention and disappearance (supra para. 61(4)). In other cases, the Court has considered this absence of effective recourses to be a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims and their next of kin.78 Following the fall of the dictatorship and in the absence of an official investigation, some of the next of kin filed the respective complaints. The delay in the investigations, which were also incomplete and ineffective to punish those responsible for the facts, has exacerbated the next of kin’s feeling of powerlessness (infra paras. 111 to 133); and (e) Furthermore, since the four abovementioned victims are still disappeared, the next of kin have not been able to honor their loved ones appropriately. In this regard, the Court recalls that the continued deprivation of the truth concerning the fate of a disappeared person constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for the close family.79 102. Regarding the nephews and nieces of the Ramírez Villalba brothers, children of Julio Darío Ramírez Villalba; namely, Mirtha Hayde Ramírez de Morinigo, Ana María Ramírez de Mellone, Julio César Ramírez Vásquez, Rubén Darío Ramírez Vásquez and Héctor Daniel Ramírez Vásquez (supra paras. 25 and 31), the Court considers that there is insufficient evidence in the file to consider them victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 103. The facts of this case allow the Court to conclude that the violation of the personal integrity of the victims’ next of kin resulting from the forced disappearances has been increased owing to the situations and circumstances examined above, that were experienced by some of them, before, during and after the disappearances. Many of these situations and their effects, which form an integral part of the complex phenomenon of forced disappearance, subsist while some of the factors that have been verified persist. The next of kin suffer continuing physical and psychological effects caused by the said facts, which have also had an impact on their social and labor relations and altered their family dynamics. These continuing situations are eloquently revealed by the words of some of the next of kin of the victims who gave testimony in the proceedings before the Court: Rogelio Agustín Goiburú Benítez: I have been missing [my father] and I have been looking for him and needing him for 29 years, 3 months and 13 days. […] Words cannot describe the profound anguish, powerlessness, anger and infinite sadness that I feel because I do not know where my 78 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 385; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 5, para. 158, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 145. 79 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 60, para. 267; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, paras. 160 and 165.