50 133. In this case, there are contradictions about who should be considered the beneficiaries of the amounts corresponding to the damage suffered by the victim. On the one hand, based on information provided by the victim’s next of kin, the Commission indicated that William Otilio González Rivera had a son. On the other hand, in their brief on reparations the next of kin refer to pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages suffered by the parents and, in general, by the next of kin, without mentioning the existence of a descendant. Lastly, during his statement at the public hearing on reparations, the victim’s father mentioned the victim’s parents and siblings, without identifying the latter, as beneficiaries. Accordingly, this Court considered it appropriate to request the next of kin to provide proof of the relationship of the siblings, son or next of kin who lived with the victim at the time of the facts, and, as a result, the next of kin submitted five birth certificates of the siblings of William Otilio González Rivera (supra 62), and indicated that they were “the only documents that they possess[ed].” 134. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with its criteria, this Court considers that, although the existence of an alleged son of the victim has not been confirmed, should this son exist, he should be awarded the totality of the indemnity to compensate the victim’s loss of income. 135. In view of the findings of the previous paragraph, the victim’s next of kin and the Commission must provide the State with any information they have, in order to identify the son of William Otilio González Rivera, so that the State may, in turn, verify his existence. If, within one year from the date of notification of this judgment, the son has not been identified, the victim’s parents will be the beneficiaries of the compensation indicated in the previous paragraph. * * * 136. In his testimony during this reparations stage, Salvador González Najarro indicated that, as a result of the death of his son, he and his wife, María Asunción Rivera Velásquez, suffered a series of illnesses that required medical treatment; however, there is no supporting evidence on this point. 137. Reimbursement of the expenses defrayed by the next of kin of William Otilio González Rivera in their search for the victim, the exhumation, transfer of his remains to Jutiapa, funeral expenses and the loss of the victim’s business and the merchandise in it at the time has also been requested. In the case sub judice, the Court considers that it is not possible to establish a relation of cause and effect between the event that occurred to the victim and the alleged loss of the stall and merchandise. 138. With regard to the other expenses, the Court considers that, in real terms, a general patrimonial damage was caused to the family group owing to what happened to the victim, for reasons that may be attributed to the State. These generated financial, health and other types of problems to the family for which, based on the principle of fairness, reparation should be made, even though the evidence submitted to support the calculation of the damage caused is insufficient and there are contradictions in the amounts indicated. Therefore, the Court proceeds to establish a fair amount of US$2,000.00 (two thousand United States dollars), to be handed to Salvador González Najarro, as the victim’s father, so that he may proceed to distribute this amount in accordance with the expenses that the family incurred.