44 * * 143. The Court has stated on other occasions that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims. The Court has held as violated the right to psychological and moral integrity of the next of kin of victims because of the additional pain they have suffered as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones and because of the subsequent actions or omissions of State officials regarding the facts. 125 144. With respect to Mr. Prisciliano Sierra, the body of evidence shows that he suffered various encumbrances that were evinced as feelings of fear, anger, and distrust associated with the pursuit of justice and impunity of the case. 126 Moreover, the Court does not find the damages alleged by the representatives regarding the reputation of Mr. Prisciliano Fernandez for the rape of his wife or those relating to the alleged noncompliance of an assigned social role to be attributable to the State (supra para. 140). 145. As for the children of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, the Tribunal considers that one of the primary afflictions they suffered has to do with their presence in a situation of extreme violence, until immediately prior to the rape of their mother (supra para. 83), a fact which likely generated a profound psychological impact, intense fear, and uncertainty. The expert witness, Correa González, stated that, the most evident psychological impact “has to do with the wounds of the images of horror by which they have had to live with for so long, besides the fact of having experienced death based on the possibility that their mother could have died, and because of the violence of which she was a target. This has created a sense of fear and distrust towards life.”127 In this regard, the Court notes that two of the children present at the time preceding the rape were two and four years old, to which it was stated to the Court that only the latter, named Colosio Prisciliano Fernandez, has some memories of the events.128 On their behalf, the two eldest daughters have clear memories of what occurred129 in fact, the eldest daughter, Noemí Prisciliano Fernández, has given testimony regarding the facts she witnessed 125 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 161, Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 18, para. 220. 126 Mr. Prisciliano Sierra declared “[when] they told us that the case was already with the [soldiers], that they were going to investigate it[, I] got very angry because I did not trust them to investigate.” Moreover, the pursuit of justice implied that they had to leave their community in such a way that “each time they left for Ayutla, they had to leave [their] children alone with the fear that something could happen to them.” Likewise, he noted that “we were always with fear that something would happen to us because we lived alone in a corner of Barranca Tecoani.” He also stated, “we are always afraid[.] I don’t feel well about how so much time has passed since they hurt my wife and nothing has happened since, it is like no one believes us but they believe the [soldiers],” sworn statement rendered before public notary by Mr. Prisciliano Sierra, supra note 66, folios 1502 to 1504. On the other hand, the expert witness Correa González noted that Mr. Prisciliano Sierra “[f]eels that he is unable to properly care for his family, because he has accompanied [his wife] throughout the entire process of filing a complaint, his financial situation has deteriorated to the point where they are no longer able to live as they did before,” psycho-social expert opinion rendered before a public notary by Mrs. Correa González, supra note 113, folios 1617 and 1618). 127 Cf. psycho-social expert opinion rendered by Mrs. Correa González, supra note 113, folios 1618. The Court notes that the expert testimony of Mrs. Correa indicated that the “small children were not interviewed so as not to cause undue harm from the reliving of memories without the possibility of self control given the situation.” 128 Cf. Assessment of the psychological impact, supra note 30, folio 5691. 129 Cf. Assessment of the psychological impact, supra note 30, folios 5690 and 5691.