the Court. 15 Therefore, the Court underscores that, as argued by the State, the victims in this case are exclusively those persons declared as such in the pertinent parts of the Judgment. 41. Based on the above, the compensation ordered in the Judgment was established exclusively in favor of the victims in this case, as revealed by paragraphs 325, 363, 367, 371, 373 and 374 of the Judgment. However, in the absence of those entitled to the compensation, due to either their disappearance or death, the Court established two methods of paying the said compensation to their heirs. 42. On the one hand, the Court recalls that paragraph 364 establishes the criteria to be followed in order to distribute the compensation for loss of earnings of the victims of forced disappearance established in the Judgment (supra para. 34). 43. In addition, regarding the compensation established in the Judgment for non-pecuniary damage, in paragraph 375 of its Judgment the Court stipulated that: 375. […] The amounts determined in favor of the persons who were disappeared, or of those victims or their next of kin who are now deceased, must be paid in accordance with the above-mentioned criteria (supra para. 364). 44. On the other hand, paragraph 385 of the Judgment states: 385. If any of the beneficiaries are deceased or die before they have received the respective compensation, this will be provided directly to the heirs, pursuant to the applicable domestic law. 45. In its consistent case law, when ordering the payment of compensation to victims who are deceased or have been forcibly disappeared in application of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has established the manner in which this compensation must be delivered to the next of kin or heirs. 16 In some cases, the Court has ordered that this compensation be distributed among the next of kin or heirs according to the criteria established in the applicable domestic law. However, in certain cases, the Court has also found it appropriate to establish the criteria to be used by the State when distributing the compensation established in favor of deceased or disappeared victims. 17 These criteria do not necessarily coincide with the provisions of domestic law on inheritance matters, and the Court has therefore weighed the effects of its rulings based on the factual framework of the case. 18 15 Cf. Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 310, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 251. 16 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series 131, para. 32. 17 In this regard see, inter alia: Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 49, 52 to 55 and 58; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 41; Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, paras. 91, 93, 101, 102 and 111; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 230 and 231; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 240 and 241; Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 310, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 289. 18 In this regard, inter alia, Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paras. 77 and 97; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela, supra, paras. 40, 41 and 42; Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, paras. 60 and 61; Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras, 55, 56 and 65; Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra, paras. 91 to 93; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paras. 164, 165 and 11