-76Commission, the representatives, and the State concerning who should be
considered beneficiaries of any reparations ordered by the Court.
Arguments of the Commission
139. The Commission stated that “[owing to] the nature of this case, the
beneficiaries of the reparations ordered as a result of the human rights violations
perpetrated by the Salvadoran State against the Serrano Cruz [sisters] are: María
Victoria Cruz Franco (the victims’ mother), [who] unfortunately […] has since died,
Suyapa Serrano Cruz Franco (the victims’ sister) and José Fernando Serrano Cruz
(the victims’ brother).”
Arguments of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin
140.
The representatives argued that:
a)
The closest relatives are considered “victims.” Therefore, “the following
persons are holders of the right to reparation as victims: Erlinda Serrano Cruz
(disappeared victim), Ernestina Serrano Cruz (disappeared victim), María
Victoria Cruz Franco (mother of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz), Suyapa
Serrano Cruz (sister of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz), José Fernando
Serrano Cruz (brother of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz), Martha Serrano
Cruz (sister of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz), Arnulfo Serrano Cruz
(brother of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz), Rosa Serrano Cruz (sister of
Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz) and Oscar Serrano Cruz (brother of
Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz)”; and
b)
The next of kin of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz “have the right
to reparation from two different perspectives: first, as successors or
beneficiaries of the reparations that the State of El Salvador must pay as a
result of the violations to the rights of the Serrano Cruz [sisters] and, second,
as victims per se.”
Arguments of the State
141.
The State indicated that:
a)
“The next of kin of the alleged victims could in no way be considered
injured parties and successors and beneficiaries, because El Salvador has not
violated the children’s right to life, since the presumption of death […] cannot
be applied, because there is a legitimate presumption and proven facts that
both the children are still alive”;
b)
The Court “cannot rule on facts that took place prior to the date on
which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction; [… therefore] it has no
jurisdiction to decide that the amount of the reparations […] be extended to
the alleged violation of the right to life, which signifies that the next of kin
cannot claim reparations as successors or beneficiaries of both children”; and
c)
“Although the Serrano Cruz family nucleus can be considered
extensive, and includes the siblings of the children, Erlinda and Ernestina, for
the purposes of this judgment […] the following siblings [should not be
considered] next of kin affected by the disputed facts: Fernando Serrano