46. Regarding the State’s argument that “domestic inheritance proceedings must be undertaken” regardless of the Court’s indications in this regard (supra para. 29), the Court recalls that Article 63(1) of the Convention empowers the Inter American Court to determine the measures that permit making reparation for the consequences of a violation, and to regulate all aspects thereof. 19 When ordering the different measures of reparation, the Court is not limited by the domestic law of the State found responsible. 20 47. When the Court establishes criteria for the distribution of the compensation established in favor of disappeared or deceased persons, it is precisely to avoid, insofar as possible, that the next of kin of the victims, who have already accredited their identity and relationship before this Court, have to undertake domestic inheritance proceedings, which could delay unnecessarily the payment of the compensation established in the Judgment. 48. During the merits and reparations stage of this case and based on information provided by the Commission and the representatives that was not contested by the State, the Court identified the next of kin of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar who were also considered victims in their own right of certain violations declared in the Judgment (referred to in this Judgment as “next of kin who are victims,” supra para. 38). To the contrary, the Judgment did not individualize those who, as heirs, should receive the compensation established in the Judgment in favor of the “next of kin who are victims.” Consequently, the Court considers that by reading the three provisions on the distribution of compensation together, it is clear that paragraph 364 of the Judgment establishes the criteria that the State should apply in order to pay the compensation established in the Judgment in favor of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar (the 26 victims of forced disappearance and Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz); while the compensation established in favor of the “next of kin who are victims” who have died must be delivered “directly to their heirs, in accordance with the applicable domestic law.” 49. Therefore, this Court interprets that paragraph 375 of the Judgment applies only to the distribution of the non-pecuniary compensation established in favor of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar, and that it is the provisions of paragraph 385 of that decision that apply to the “next of kin who are victims.” Hence, this means that the reference to “their next of kin” in paragraph 375 is a material error. 50. The Court also notes that paragraph 385 uses the word “beneficiaries,” so that, in addition to the “next of kin who are victims,” those victims recorded in the Diario Militar are also covered (supra para. 44). In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that, even though the provision in paragraph 385 of the Judgment is the prevailing criterion for the delivery of the compensation established in favor of the “next of kin who are victims,” this provision must be interpreted as subsidiary and complementary to the criteria established in paragraph 364 of the said decision for the victims recorded in the Diario Militar, as is evident from subparagraph (e) of that paragraph. Therefore, when distributing the compensation in favor of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar, the State must apply the criteria set out in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 364 of the Judgment, and only apply domestic inheritance law when the existence 178; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, paras. 98 and 99, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra, para. 34. 19 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, supra, para. 44; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 147, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 327. 20 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, supra, para. 44, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra, para. 29. 12