21 92. The Court considers that the expression “next of kin” of the victim should be interpreted in a broad sense to include all persons related by close kinship. Hence, the victim’s children, Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza; her parents, Julio Loayza-Sudario and Adelina Tamayo-Trujillo de Loayza, and her siblings, Delia Haydée, Carolina Maida, Julio William, Olga Adelina, Rubén Edilberto and Giovanna Elizabeth, all by the surname of Loayza-Tamayo, are considered her next of kin. As such, they could be entitled to receive compensation if they meet the tests established in the jurisprudence of this Court (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 71 and Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, supra 84, para. 52). REPRESENTATIONS 93. On February 5, 1998, the victim submitted a power of attorney dated January 30, 1998, granted to Ms. Carolina Loayza-Tamayo and to Mr. Ariel Dulitzky, Ms. Viviana Krsticevic and Ms. Marcela Matamoros, members of the Center for Justice in International Law (CEJIL) and Mr. José Miguel Vivanco, a member of Human Rights Watch/Americas. It authorized them to serve as her representative in the reparations proceedings (supra 9). 94. Peru argued that neither the victim nor Carolina Loayza-Tamayo had signed the reparations brief. It added that the power of attorney that the victim had granted on January 30, 1998, had "absolutely no juridical value" inasmuch as it does not meet the requirements prescribed under Peruvian law. These included the requirement that the power of attorney be done in the presence of a notary and that it follow the formalities established under Notary Law No. 26,002. Using these arguments, the State’s contention was that the "supposed" representatives of the victim signed the reparations brief unlawfully. Finally, it argued that the individuals in question were not empowered to represent the parents, children and siblings of the victim, as none had granted them power of attorney. 95. On May 28, 1998, the victim presented, along with other documents, a second power of attorney granted in the presence of a notary public on February 9 of that year to Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Ariel Dulitzky, Viviana Krsticevic, Marcela Matamoros and José Miguel Vivanco (supra 19). She cited articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure when presenting that second power of attorney. 96. On June 8, 1998, the State made reference to the second power of attorney, alleging that the document confirmed the fact that the individuals who signed the reparations brief did not do so as her representatives. Further, it pointed out that the first power of attorney submitted was granted to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and Human Rights Watch/Americas, while the second was granted to the representatives by name and in a personal capacity. Hence, the State alleged, that “the attempted confirmation is unlawful.” Finally, Peru argued that the second power of attorney ought to have been granted in accordance with Peruvian law. 97. The State objected to the powers that the victim granted, alluding to a series of formalities under Peruvian domestic law (supra 96). This argument is not acceptable in an international court for the protection of human rights, whose proceedings are not bound by the same formal rules that bind domestic courts, as the Court has held in its jurisprudence constante (Gangaram Panday Case,