17 BENEFICIARIES 54. The Court will now determine the person or persons who, in the instant case, constitute the "injured party" to whom Article 63(1) of the American Convention refers. Inasmuch as Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez was the victim of most of the violations of the American Convention established by the Court in its Judgment of November 3, 1997, the Court will have to ascertain which of the reparations ordered in his favor can convey to his next of kin by succession and to which of those next of kin. In the case of reparations for violation of Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the Court must determine which of the victim’s next of kin are entitled in their own right to reparations, as victims of the breach of Article 25 established in operative paragraph 4 of the Judgment on the merits. 55. The Commission and the victim’s next of kin named the following members of the victim’s family as the beneficiaries or successors in title of the reparations: the victim’s father, Mr. Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo; his mother, Ms. Carmen Rosa Páez-Warton; and his sister, Ms. Mónica Inés Castillo-Páez. During the reparations hearing, the victim’s next of kin asserted that the kinship of the sister of victim Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez had been proven, as had the injury and consequences she suffered as a result of her brother’s disappearance. 56. that: Concerning this matter, Article 23 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provide At the reparations stage, the representatives of the victims or of their next of kin may independently submit their own arguments and evidence. This provision gives the injured party locus standi, i.e., the right to appear directly before the Court during the reparations stage and safeguard his own interests during the proceedings. 57. Peru argued that for reparations purposes, heirs "must prove their claim of inheritance in accordance with the provisions of Peruvian law." On May 11, 1998, the State supplied the "certification attesting to the absence of any application for intestate succession" which, it asserted, showed that the procedures required under Peruvian law to allow intestate succession had not been carried out. 58. During the public hearing (supra 17), the victim’s next of kin asserted that given the State’s argument that the succession procedures required under Peruvian law had not been followed, Peru was demanding the observance of the formalities of its own domestic legal system, whereas "in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case and subsequent judgments, the Court had ruled that one need only prove kinship"; this had already been done with submission of the birth certificates and marriage certificate of the parents of the victim. 59. The Court has held, and now reiterates, that the right to compensation for damages suffered by victims up to the time of their death conveys to their heirs by succession. On the other hand, the victim’s death may entitle his next of kin or injured third parties to seek damages in their own right (cf. Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 50, para. 54; El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 50, paras. 43 and 46; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra 50, paras. 63 and 65; Caballero and Santana Case, Reparations, supra 50, paras. 60 and 61 and Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, supra 42, para. 50). In operative paragraph four of the