because they are least prepared to adapt or respond to this situation and, unfortunately, are those who suffer from its excesses disproportionately.”348 240. In the instant case, the Court has found proved that, as a result of the events of December 13, 1998, in the village of Santo Domingo, six boys and girls died and another 10 were injured (supra para. 70), who had been seen by the aircraft pilots.349 In addition to what has already been indicated, as will be seen below several children of Santo Domingo were forced to displace (infra para. 267). 241. Having analyzed the foregoing, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to provide special protection to the children affected by the events of Santo Domingo, because it did not meet its special obligation of protection in the context of a non-international armed conflict. Consequently, the Court considers that the violations to the right to life and personal integrity declared previously must be understood in relation to the violation of Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of the children who died, namely Jaime Castro Bello, Egna Margarita Bello Tilano, Luis Carlos Neite Méndez, Deysi Katherine (or Catherine) Cárdenas Tilano, Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila and Geovany Hernández Becerra; and of the children who were injured, namely: : Alba Yaneth García Guevara, Marcos Aurelio Neite Méndez, Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas, Hilda Yuraime Barranco Bastilla, Ricardo Ramírez, Yeimi Viviana Contreras, Maryori Agudelo Flórez, Rosmira Daza Rojas, Neftalí Neite González and Lida Barranca. B.5. The alleged violation of the right to integrity of the next of kin 242. In numerous cases, the Court has considered that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.350 In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify some aspects of its case law in relation to the determination of violations to the personal integrity of the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations351 or other persons with close ties to such victims.352 Indeed, the Court considers that it can declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the direct family of victims of certain human rights violations applying a iuris tantum presumption with regard to mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, permanent companions, and siblings (hereinafter “direct next of kin”), provided that this responds to the specific circumstances of the case.353 In the case of these direct next of kin, it corresponds to the State to disprove this presumption. In the other scenarios, the Court must analyze whether the evidence in the case file proves a violation of the right to personal integrity of the presumed victim, whether or not the latter is a relative of any other victim in the case, in which case, it will assess, for example, whether there is a particularly close tie between them and the victims in the case that allows the Court to consider the violation of the right to personal integrity.354 In the instant case, the Court observes that, according to an expert psychological opinion provided, the 348 Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 156. 349 In the Skymaster video it is possible to hear that, at 08:39:18, one of the pilots of the aircraft distinguishes “around 40 people […] in civilian clothing” and adds “there are also children among them.” After the bomb has been dropped, it is also possible to hear from the recording that, at different moments, children were identified among the inhabitants: at 10:14:37 a.m.; 10:19:00 a.m.; 10:19:09 a.m.; 10:25:22 a.m.; 10:27:44 a.m., and 10:33:06 am. 350 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 197, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 146. See also, Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 120; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, fourth operative paragraph; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 133, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 235. 351 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 Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114. 352 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 119, and Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 57. 353 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 119, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 302 354 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 119, and Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114. ‐ 71 ‐