42 155. The representatives argued that the suffering of the next of kin is a direct consequence of a forced disappearance. They also indicated that the responsibility of the State is aggravated “since the next of kin of the victims found themselves in the situation of having to assume[...] the direction of the investigation.” They also stressed that all this occurred “in the midst of a furious campaign of stigmatization and criminalization against the victims.” 156. The State emphasized that the Commission did not establish what damage each of Arrom's sisters would have suffered, nor did it substantiate the existence of damage and its causal relationship with the events experienced by Arrom. In addition to this, the State referred to the impossibility of measuring a psychological or physical affectation for them, because there were no records of psychological studies. It also indicated that the change in the lives of the next of kin “occurred exclusively as a result of [Arrom and Martí's] attitude of not submitting to Paraguayan justice, for which reason it denied […] that their next of kin suffered harm caused by the State.” B. Considerations of the Court 157. The Court notes that the arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of the next of kin are based on the alleged responsibility of the State for the forced disappearance and torture of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí, or for the alleged lack of adequate investigation of the facts. The Court considers that there is no international responsibility of the State with respect to the aforementioned right, enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, since it did not establish the participation of the State in the alleged disappearance and torture of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez, nor a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection. VIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS Therefore, THE COURT DECLARES: Unanimously, that 1. The State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, as established in paragraphs 93to 132of this judgment. 2. The State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, as established in paragraphs 136to 152of this judgment. 3. The State is not responsible for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, as established in paragraph 157of this judgment. 4. Given that the international responsibility of the State has not been established, it is not appropriate to rule on reparations, costs and expenses. AND ESTABLISHES: