25 State has effectively complied with this obligation, regarding the identified victims and next-of-kin. 71. That, without detriment to the foregoing, it is appropriate to recall that, in the Judgment, the Court expressed its concern about the situation of the unidentified victims, for whose death the State also acknowledged its responsibility, as well as regarding that of their next of kin. As a consequence, in paragraph 289 of the Judgment, the Court gave the next-of-kin of the unidentified victims the possibility of receiving the corresponding payment for non-pecuniary damage. In such a way, if a victim were to be individually identified, the State has to notify his or her next-of-kin in order for them to appear before M.O.S. Mapiripán within 24 months of that date and prove their relationship to or kinship with the victim, under the terms of paragraph 257.b) of the Judgment. According to what was mentioned (supra Considering clause 49), it is reasonably to presume, considering the dimensions and consequences of the massacre, that an important part of victims and next-of-kin need to be identified. If other people were to be identified, they could be beneficiaries of those reparations, under the terms stipulated in the Judgment. 72. That, furthermore, it is necessary to recall that, due to lack of information, the Court did not order the compensations for pecuniary damage in favor of the unidentified victims and their next-of-kin. However, the Tribunal clarified that setting of reparations neither obstructs nor precludes the possibility of the next -of -kin of unidentified victims filing the appropriate complaints before the national authorities, as they come to be identified. 73. That in the last report, the State consulted the Court about paragraph 258 of the Judgment: regarding the payment to the children of Luz Mery Pinzón López, the children of Zuli Herrera Contreras, as well as the children of Viviana Barrera; and asked the Court about the amount of the compensation that they should receive in case they appear before the M.O.S.- which has not happened so far-, since it does not spring from the Judgment the amount to be paid to the grandchildren of the executed and made to disappear victims. Also, it requested the Court to clarify whether these people should follow the same identification procedure established in paragraphs 256 and 257 of the Judgment. 74. That, the Commission pointed out in paragraph 288.c) of the Judgment regarding the determination of the compensatory amounts for non-pecuniary damage to the next-of-kin of the victims, that it would be appropriate to clarify the amount that the people mentioned in paragraph 258 should receive. The Commission emphasized the pertinent parts of the Judgment in which the Court made reference to these people, considered their relationship with the victims of the massacre proved and as well as the violations committed to their detriment. In that sense, it considered that “the spirit of paragraph 258 is to include said people as victims and as a consequence, it requests the Court to order the State to recognize the legal status of such people under the terms of paragraph 288.c)". 75. That, as to the State’s consultation, this Tribunal established in paragraph 258 of the Judgment that from the evidence furnished, it spring the existence of other next-of-kin, victims of displacement and of abridgment of the right to humane treatment and of the rights of the child, for example, the children of Luz Mery Pinzón López; Mrs. Elvina o Elsy Delfina Vaca (mother of Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca); the four children of Zuli Herrera Contreras, as well as the five children of Viviana Barrera, whose existence and rights’ abridgment was recognized