128 The representatives’ arguments 351. The representatives indicated that all those affected by the violation of their human rights and whose identity is established during the proceedings should be considered beneficiaries (supra para. 18). The State’s arguments 352. The State considered it inadmissible that many of those who had recourse to the Court did not opt for claiming reparations under the domestic legal system, and that some of them expect the international instance to grant them compensation for damage they did not include in their claims before the domestic courts. The Court’s findings 353. The Court will proceed to determine who should be considered an injured party in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, consequently, merit the reparations established by the Court for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, when applicable. 354. It should be recalled that in a contentious case before the Court, the party concerned must state who the beneficiaries are.261 However, when establishing reparations, the Court observes that the grave facts of this case have had a series of effects. Consequently, the Court reserves the right to determine, in the corresponding section, other forms of reparation in favor of all the members of the villages affected by the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that the determination of reparations in this international instance does not obstruct or preclude the possibility of other next of kin of victims who have not be individualized or identified in these proceedings filing the pertinent claims before the national authorities. 355. First, the Court considers that the persons whose rights the State has acknowledged its international responsibility for violating are the injured party: (a) Alberto Correa, Arnulfo Sánchez Álvarez, Fabio Antonio Zuleta Zabala, Guillermo Andrés Mendoza Posso, Héctor Hernán Correa García, Jairo de Jesús Sepúlveda Arias, José Darío Martínez Pérez, Luis Modesto Múnera Posada, Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio, María Graciela Arboleda Rodríguez, Nelson de Jesús Palacio Cárdenas, Olcris Fail Díaz Pérez, Omar de Jesús Ortiz Carmona, Omar Iván Gutiérrez Nohavá, Otoniel de Jesús Tejada Jaramillo, Elvia Rosa Areiza Barrera, Dora Luz Areiza Arroyave, William de Jesús Villa García and Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, as victims of the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) (Right to Life) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, and regarding whom the Court also determined the violation of their right to humane treatment established in Article 5(1) thereof, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof (supra para. 256); 261 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 252; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 177; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, supra note 12, para. 62.