46 testify before officials at a young age “created a secondary victimization, because she recalled[,] in the presence of governmental authorities[,] what happened to her mother, thus causing her profound feelings of fear and anger, and this sensation remained for a long time.” 135 148. The expert witness, Correa González, stated that, “the emotional climate of the family […] has been permeated by fear[. O]ne observes their reluctance to speak about the emotions which affect them, they are afraid of reviving that which has been kept in silence for so long, not knowing what to say, nor what to do. This feeling of being in constant risk has made them remain in a place of uncertainty and insecurity, causing such emotional exhaustion that they are prevented from improving their family relationship.” 136 149. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that the rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega as well as the facts related to the pursuit of justice and impunity in the present case, involved a violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention against Mr. Prisciliano Sierra and Noemí, Ana Luz, Colosio, Nelida, and Neftalí, all by the surname of Prisciliano Fernandez, in relation with Article 1(1) thereof. 150. On the other hand, the Court notes that the argument posed by the representatives regarding the alleged violation of Article 19 of the American Convention is time barred (supra para. 140), to which it will not rule on the matter. Moreover, the Court deems that it is not necessary to rule on other arguments that refer to the same facts and which have been analyzed in the light of other conventional obligations. * * * 151. As for the mother and siblings of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, the Court considers it relevant to recall that although in its jurisprudence it has determined that it can declare the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of direct family members of victims of certain violations of human rights by applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and permanent companions, and this has been limited to specific types of cases, as long as it is a response to its particular circumstances, as has occurred for example, in cases of massacres, forced disappearances of individuals, and extrajudicial executions.137 There is no presumption, therefore, that the violation of personal integrity exists in all cases involving family members, nor to all family members. In this case, the Court will consider whether the evidence on record merits a violation of personal integrity for the mother and siblings of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. 152. With regard to Mrs. Maria Lidia Ortega, mother of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, the Court only has the expert testimony of Mrs. Correa González to rely on, which indicates some of the afflictions she suffered. The Court does not have sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the harm claimed involved a violation of the personal integrity of said individual. Moreover, certain arguments made by the 135 Cf. Psycho-social expert opinion rendered before a public notary by Mrs. Correa González, supra note 113, folio 1618. 136 Cf. Psycho-social expert opinion rendered before a public notary by Mrs. Correa González, supra note 113, 1619. 137 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 162, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 18, para. 220.