31 Commission did not allege the violation of this Article to the detriment of Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s sisters and brother, the Court has held that alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives may invoke different rights from those included in the application filed by the Commission, based on the facts presented by the latter.50 60. This Court has asserted on several occasions51 that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. In this line of reasoning, the Court has considered that the mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin has been violated in light of the additional suffering experienced as a result of the specific circumstances surrounding the violations committed against their loved ones and of the subsequent acts or omissions by State authorities with respect to the incidents at issue here.52 61. In cases involving the forced disappearance of persons, the Court has stated that the violation of the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin is, precisely, a direct consequence of such forced disappearance,53 which inflicts upon them great suffering, compounded by the constant refusal of State authorities to provide information about the victim’s whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation into the facts of the case. 62. Taking into account its case law, the Inter-American Court admitted the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State in the instant case (supra paras. 12, 14, and 30), with respect to the violation of the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón, Esmila Liliana ConisllaCárdenas and the girl Ana María Gómez-Guevara. 63. The Court appreciates the State’s acknowledgment of the intense suffering endured for over thirteen years, especially by Mrs. Victoria Margarita PalominoBuitrón, as a result of her son’s forced disappearance and the subsequent denial of justice, which made it impossible to determine his whereabouts, all of which this Court has been able to establish on the basis of the evidence introduced in the instant case (supra para. 54.21). 64. There being no acknowledgment of responsibility by the State for the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. GómezPalomino’s sisters and brother: María Dolores Gómez-Palomino, Luzmila Sotelo50 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 9, para. 181; Case of Yatama, supra note 8, para. 183; and Case of De La Cruz-Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122. 51 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, paras. 144 and 146; Case of the SerranoCruz sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 113 and 114; and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 210. v 52 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 144 and 146; Case of the SerranoCruz sisters, supra note 51, paras. 113 and 114; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 51, para. 210. 53 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 51, para. 211; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160; and Case of Blake. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114.