13 the Court will not take into account the three individuals who were named in the representatives’ list with the erroneous indication that they were the brothers of surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón. The Tribunal has determined that they were not brothers, but rather, cousins17. The representatives did not include any justification for their inclusion as victims. As a result, the Court finds that only twelve of the fifteen individuals (supra para. 41) added by the representatives in their list will be considered as victims by this Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal will consider as victims a total of 98 individuals characterized as next of kin by the Commission and the representatives in their briefs. 49. The Tribunal notes that in the brief containing pleadings and motions the representatives did not include the name of the father of the victim Mariela Morales Caro in the list of next of kin considered as victims. However, they did mention him in their arguments with regard to the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in the sense that they indicated that “the father of Mariela Morales Caro” died “in the period immediately following the massacre.” In their written closing arguments, they stated that the father of this victim is Mr. Gilberto Morales Téllez, “who died three months after the death of his daughter due to a heart attack.” 50. The Court finds that, although his name was not indicated until later, because he was mentioned by the representatives in their brief containing pleadings and motions, Mr. Gilberto Morales Téllez must be considered within the next of kin acknowledged as victims by Colombia. Regarding the Reparations 51. The Court observes that, on the subject of reparations, the State rejects the requests made by the Commission and the representatives, and requested that the Court declare that it had fulfilled its “duty to provide comprehensive redress, […], specifically with regard to its obligations of a pecuniary nature.” Moreover, in its reply brief, the State requests, inter alia, that the Inter-American Court apply the jurisprudential standards of the Court corresponding to the years 1995 and 1996, which was the period in which the contentious administrative courts acknowledged compensations for some survivors and the next of kin of the victims. 52. In addition, the parties dispute the general scope and application to the specific case of both the laws for the demobilization of paramilitary groups as well as the measures to eradicate the paramilitary phenomenon. 53. Likewise, in the section corresponding to Reparations (infra para. 240 and 276 to 282) the Court will assess whether the abovementioned partial agreement on reparations is compatible with the pertinent provisions of the American Convention.18 With regard to the section of the partial agreement among the parties titled “reparation issues in dispute”, the Court will rule upon the issues related to guarantees of non-repetition and claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the issues which remain in dispute, based upon its jurisprudence and the body of evidence in this case (infra para. 246 to 274 and 284 to 306). 17 These individuals are Yulieth Salgado Ramírez, Milton Freddy Salgado Ramírez, and Diana Constanza Salgado Ramírez. 18 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 90; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 89, para. 23; and Case of Barrios Altos. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, para. 23.