103 persons, and extrajudicial executions. 474 In other circumstances, the Court must analyze whether the evidence in the case file proves a violation of the presumed victim’s right to personal integrity, whether or not he or she is a relative of any other victim in the case and, in this regard, it will assess, for example, whether there are particularly close ties between such a person and the victims in the case that would allow the Court to consider that his or her right to personal integrity has been violated. 475 297. In this regard the Court observes that Gladys Espinoza was subjected to torture, including sexual violence and rape, and was also the victim of inhuman and degrading treatment, all within the framework of a generalized practice of such acts (supra paras. 67, 185, 187 and 196). In other words, Ms. Espinoza was a victim of egregious human rights violations. Therefore, the Court considers that, in this case, the said iuris tantum presumption is applicable to Teodora Gonzáles de Espinoza, mother of Ms. Espinoza Gonzáles, who is now deceased. 476 Moreover, the Court observes that both Gladys Espinoza 477 and her brother, Manuel Espinoza, 478 have stated that their mother was profoundly affected by what happened to her daughter. 298. In addition, with regard to the harm suffered by Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles, he testified before the Court that his relationship with Gladys Espinoza had always been “very close since they were children.” He also stated that, for his mother and himself, “it was very difficult and painful to find Gladys” beaten and injured, with bruises and sutures when they saw her in the DINCOTE for the first time (supra para. 74), and that he felt “terrible, because [he] was powerless to do anything for [his] sister” on discovering what had happened to her. He recalled “the way they treated [his] sister with anger and distress, and how this affected [his] mother.” He also stated that they “were not the first or the last to experience such events and [for] everything to remain unpunished. This ma[de him] feel very frustrated and depressed […]; everything that happened, but [he] remains hopeful […] that one day [they] will obtain justice for [his] sister.” 479 299. Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that the State violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Teodora Gonzáles de Espinoza and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 300. Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” In this regard, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has 474 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, supra, para. 227. 475 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 114, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, paras. 279 and 281. 476 Cf. Death certificate of Teodora Gonzáles de Espinoza of August 4, 2006, issued by the National Civil Registry of the Republic of Peru (evidence file, folio 12866). 477 Cf. Affidavit made on March 26, 2014, by Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles (merits file, folio 906). 478 Cf. Affidavit made on March 25, 2014, by Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles (merits file, folios 914, 915 and 917). 479 Cf. Affidavit made on March 25, 2014, by Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles (merits file, folios 912, 914, 916 and 917).