effects that went beyond the direct victim,” and included Ms. Rojas Marín’s mother. The representatives argued that “the serious violations suffered by Azul Rojas Marín caused profound suffering to her mother,” Juana Rosa Tanta Marín. They indicated that, in addition to being directly related, “she and Azul had a very close relationship.” They also indicated that the failure of the Peruvian authorities to respond to the complaints filed by Ms. Rojas Marín, the lack of sensitivity and the indifference they revealed, and the failure to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the violations adequately caused great anguish to Mrs. Tanta Marín, who died on May 12, 2017, without knowing that it was possible to obtain justice in her daughter’s case. The State indicated that, although a presumption iuris tantum is applicable to the next of kin of victims of torture, “the investigation into the crime of torture is underway,” so that a final judicial decision was needed in order to apply this presumption. B. Considerations of the Court 221. The Court has considered that, in cases of serious human rights violations, such as forced disappearance,287 extrajudicial execution,288 rape and torture,289 a iuris tantum presumption is applicable with regard to the violation of the right to personal integrity of mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, spouses and permanent companions, and also the siblings of the presumed victims.290 In this case, the Court has concluded that what happened to Ms. Rojas Marín constituted rape and torture (supra para. 165) and the State has not disproved the presumption of the violation of the right to personal integrity of Mrs. Tanta Marín. 222. The evidence provided to the Court reveals that the personal integrity of Juana Rosa Tanta Marín was significantly affected by the sexual torture of Azul Rojas Marín, and the failure to investigate this. According to the psychological appraisal, Mrs. Tanta Marín “had major chronic depression that had serious effects on her physical health and constituted a risk to her life.”291 The report indicates that “given the particular nature of the relationship that Juana had with her [daughter], the traumatic incident had a devastating impact on her psyche, clearly destroying one of her emotional supports in life.”292 223. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Juana Rosa Tanta Marín. 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 Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 114. 287 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 218, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 191. 288 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 137 to 139, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 321. 289 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 119, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 320. 290 291 Cf. Report of psychological appraisal of Juana Rosa Tanta Marín on March 20, 2015 (evidence file, folio 2428). 292 Cf. Report of psychological appraisal of Juana Rosa Tanta Marín on March 20, 2015 (evidence file, folio 2428). 58