36. Having made the foregoing considerations, the Court now proceeds to examine the specific requests made by the representatives, taking into account the corresponding arguments of the State and the Commission, in the following order: (B.1) application of paragraphs 364, 375 and 385 of the Judgment; (B.2) beneficiaries of or heirs to the compensation established in the Judgment; (B.3) application of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 364 of the Judgment; (B.4) application of subparagraph (d) of paragraph 364 of the Judgment, and (5) scope and application of subparagraph (e) of paragraph 364 of the Judgment. B.1) Application of paragraphs 364, 375 and 385 of the Judgment 37. First, the Court proceeds to interpret the meaning and scope of paragraphs 364, 375 and 385 of the Judgment based on the questions posed by the representatives with regard to their application. In this regard, the Court considers that the interpretation of these provisions is directly related to the representatives’ questions on the universe of beneficiaries to whom the compensation established in the Judgment should be delivered (supra paras. 27 and 28). Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to include some general considerations concerning the victims in this case, and will then examine the specific questions posed by the representatives. 38. In this regard, the Court notes that, according to the Judgment, most of the victims in this case can be divided into two groups: the 26 victims of forced disappearance recorded in the “Diario Militar” (also identified as “disappeared victims” throughout the Judgment), and the latter’s next of kin who were declared victims in their own right of the facts examined in this case (also identified as “next of kin of the disappeared victims” throughout the Judgment). In addition to these two groups of people, the following were also declared to be victims in their own right: a deceased victim recorded in the “Diario Militar” (Rudy Gustavo Figueroa) and his next of kin, owing to the State’s failure to investigate his death effectively, and Igor and Wendy Santizo Méndez, owing to the State's failure to investigate their alleged detention and torture effectively. To facilitate the analysis of the questions posed by the representatives, in this Judgment on interpretation, the Court will identify the victims in this case in two groups: (i) the “victims recorded in the Diario Militar” (which includes the 26 victims of forced disappearance and Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz) and the “next of kin who are victims” (which includes the next of kin of the disappeared victims and the next of kin of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, who were declared victims in their own right in the Judgment). 39. The Court considers that the persons who the Court considered to be victims in this case is sufficiently clear in the Judgment; specifically in paragraphs 217, 222, 267, 281, 282, 291, 292, 302, 308, 312, 318 and 325, and in the Annex to this ruling. Under Article 63(1) of the Convention, the compensation ordered in the Judgment as a measure of reparation was established in favor of the persons declared victims in this ruling. In this regard, paragraph 325 stipulates: The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Consequently, the Court considers “injured party” to be those persons identified in the Annex on victims of this Judgment and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapters VIII-1, VIII-2 and VIII-3, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 40. In addition, the Court emphasizes that, in this case, the exception established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure that allows other persons to be included as victims following the delivery of the Judgment was not applied, 14 in contrast to other cases decided by 14 Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish that: “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Tribunal shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” 10