33. The Court takes note that, underlying the questions posed by the representatives there are doubts about the scope of the provisions of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs regarding the distribution of some of the compensation established in this decision. Consequently, the Court finds it admissible to interpret the meaning and scope of the aspects requested by the representatives (infra para. 36). The Court notes that this interpretation does not modify the measures of reparation, but rather seeks to clarify the provisions adopted by the Court, which, the Court reiterates, are final and non-appealable (supra paras. 6, 14 and 15). 34. Before making a specific analysis of the questions posed by the representatives, the Court finds it pertinent to make certain general clarifications about the criteria established in paragraph 364 of the Judgment, which stipulates the following: 364. The amounts indicated in favor of the above-mentioned persons as compensation for loss of earnings must be paid to their next of kin within the respective time frame established by the Court (infra para. 384), based on the following criteria: a) Fifty percent (50%) of the compensation to be distributed, in equal shares, among the children of the victim. If one or more of the children is deceased, their corresponding share shall increase the share of the other children of this victim; b) Fifty percent (50%) of the compensation to be paid to the spouse or permanent companion of the victim at the time of his or her death; c) In the event that there are no next of kin in one of the categories defined in the preceding paragraphs, the amount that would have corresponded to the next of kin in that category shall increase the share corresponding to the other category; d) If the victim had no children, or spouse, or permanent companion, the compensation shall be paid to his or her parents or, if they are deceased, to his or her siblings in equal shares, and e) In the event that there are no next of kin in one or more of the categories defined in the preceding paragraphs, the compensation shall be paid to the heirs in accordance with domestic inheritance laws. 35. From an analysis of this provision, the Court finds that it establishes four scenarios for the distribution of the compensation awarded in favor of the disappeared victims, in the order of their alternative application. In other words, the second scenario should only be applied in the absence of the first; the third should only be applied in the absence of the first and second, while the fourth scenario should only be applied if none of the next of kin established in the three preceding scenarios exist. Thus, this provision establishes that: (i) first, the compensation belonging to the disappeared or deceased victims must be delivered to and shared between their children and their spouse or permanent companion, in the proportions set out therein. If the victim had no children, or no spouse or permanent companion, the fifty percent corresponding to the non-existent category “shall increase the share corresponding to the other category” that does exist (subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 364 of the Judgment); (ii) second, the Judgment establishes that if the disappeared victim had no children, or spouse, or permanent companion, then the compensation established in his or her name in the Judgment shall be paid to and shared between his or her parents (first part of subparagraph (d) of paragraph 364); (iii) the third scenario establishes that “if [the parents] are deceased,” the compensation of the disappeared or deceased victim shall be paid to his or her siblings in equal shares (last part of subparagraph (d) of paragraph 364), and (iv) the fourth scenario is applicable only if the disappeared or deceased victim had no children, no spouse or permanent companion, no parents or siblings, when the provisions of “domestic inheritance laws” must be applied (subparagraph (e) of paragraph 364). 9