104 264. In keeping with its case law,226 the Court considers that the adequatelyidentified immediate next of kin are the direct descendents and ascendants of the alleged victim, namely: mother, father, children, and also siblings, and spouse or permanent companion, or those determined by the Court based on the characteristics of the case and the existence of some special relationship between the next of kin and the victim or the facts of the case. In this case, these people have proved their relationship by a document issued by a competent authority, such as a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate or a death certificate,227 or by other proof, such as rulings in domestic proceedings, sworn statements or expert evidence. 265. The Court considers that the next of kin of the persons executed in La Granja and El Aro, who are victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, are the persons indicated in Appendix I of this judgment, who have been identified as victims of the violation of this article. 266. Jesús María Restrepo was not indicated as an alleged victim or next of kin of a victim in this case. However, from the evidence provided to the Court, specifically the ruling in the administrative proceedings under file No. 991784 in relation to the death of the child, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, it is clear that Jesús María Restrepo is the father of this child, who was executed in El Aro (supra para. 125(101)). The representatives and the Commission have not explained why Jesús María Restrepo was not indicated as an alleged victim in this case. However, the relationship of Jesús María Restrepo with the child, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, victim executed in El Aro, has been clearly established by a ruling in the administrative jurisdiction under domestic law. In cases such as this, the damage suffered by the parents of a victim who has been executed is presumed. 267. Adán Antonio Arboleda and María Isabel Rodríguez, parents of María Graciela Arboleda Rodríguez; Israel Antonio Tejada, father of Otoniel de Jesús Tejada Jaramillo; Jesús María Ortiz, father of Omar de Jesús Ortiz Carmona; and Roberto Zuleta, father of Fabio Antonio Zuleta Zabala, were not indicated as alleged victims or next of kin of a victim in this case. However, from the evidence provided to the Court, it is clear that these persons were the parents of some of the victims executed in the massacres. The representatives and the Commission have not explained why these persons were not indicated as alleged victims in this case. However, their relationship with their family members has been clearly established by the evidence provided to the Court. In cases such as this, the damage suffered by the parents of a victim who has been executed is presumed. 268. The representatives did not allege that Guido Manuel Restrepo Torres was a relative of Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, or that he was an alleged victim in this case. However, from the body of evidence it is clear that Guido Manuel was the brother of Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres. It has also been proved that Guido Manuel Restrepo Torres died two years after the death of his brother in El Aro. Consequently, the Court considers that Guido Manuel Restrepo Torres was a next of kin of Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres and will order reparations in his favor as such, and also as a victim of the violation of his personal integrity owing to the death 226 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 235; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 257; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 178. 227 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 257.