41 by the State authorities to provide information about the whereabouts of the victims or to conduct an effective investigation to elucidate what happened causes increased suffering to the next of kin.212 The circumstances of this case reveal that the suffering of the five families affected by the disappearance of their children has been exacerbated by the withholding of the truth about what happened and the whereabouts of the victims, and by the lack of collaboration from the State authorities to establish that truth, which consequently aggravated the violation of the next of kin’s right to personal integrity. 123. The Court has also established that the elucidation of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared victim serves to relieve the anguish and suffering of families caused by the uncertainty regarding the fate of the disappeared loved one.213 In the instant case, the uncertainty and lack of information from the State about what occurred, which to a great extent continues today, has been a source of suffering and anguish for the next of kin, and has caused them feelings of insecurity, frustration and impotence owing to the public authorities’ refusal to investigate the facts. 124. There is a clear link between the suffering of the next of kin and the violation of their right to know the truth (infra para. 170), which illustrates the complexity of forced disappearance and its numerous effects. For example, María Juliana Rochac Hernández stated: “I have never been able to get my little brother out of my mind since they took him; I remember him every December and I ask myself if my mother would have found him, because you ask yourself questions and carry that burden of wondering whether they killed him, where he was taken, how they have treated him… so many questions.”214 For her part, María del Tránsito Hernández Rochac stated that “I still remember those events and each time I feel pain, sadness, anxiety, sorrow, desperation and ask myself, where is my brother José Adrián Rochac?” 215 The next of kin suffer physical and psychological effects and the events have changed the dynamics of their families and communities. These effects, which are an integral part of the complex phenomenon of forced disappearance, continue for as long as the impunity regarding the proven facts persists.216 (infra Chapter VII-2). 125. Based on the foregoing considerations, and in view of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Alfonso Hernández Herrera, Sebastián Rochac Hernández, Tanislao Rochac Hernández, María Juliana Rochac Hernández, María del Tránsito Hernández Rochac, Ana Margarita Hernández Rochac, Nicolás Alfonso Torres Hernández, María Adela Iraheta, Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta, Felipe Flores Iraheta, María Estela Salinas de Figueroa, Amparo Salinas de Hernández, Josefa Salinas Iraheta, María Adela Hernández, José Juan de la Cruz Sánchez, Joel Alcides Hernández Sánchez, Valentina Hernández, Santiago Pérez, Juan Evangelista Hernández Pérez, José Cristino Hernández, Eligorio Hernández, Rosa Ofelia Hernández, María de los Ángeles Osorio, José de la Paz Bonilla, José Arístides Bonilla Osorio, María Inés Bonilla de Galán, María Josefa Rosales, María Esperanza Alvarado, Luis Alberto Alvarado, Petronila Abarca Alvarado, Daniel Ayala Abarca, José Humberto Abarca Ayala, Ester Abarca Ayala, Osmín Abarca Ayala and Paula Alvarado. 212 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 114, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 228. Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 155, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 249. 213 Statement rendered before the Inter-American Court by María Juliana Rochac Hernández during the public hearing held on April 1, 2014. 214 215 4750). Affidavit rendered by María del Tránsito Hernández Rochac on March 7, 2014 (evidence file, volume X, affidavits, folio Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 103, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 172. 216