4 damages when the compensations are set for each of the beneficiaries. With regard to the above, the representatives asked the Court to clarify what they considered a discordance between the corresponding paragraphs of the Judgment. 12. In this regard, the State expressed that “[t]he omission of the inclusion of [the …] name [of Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa] within paragraph 206 subparagraph i) (next of kin of the victim Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa considered beneficiaries of compensations) […] must be clarified by the Court.” Likewise, it stated that “it does not see any juridical reason to oppose the acknowledgment of [said person] as next of kin[…] of the […] victim[…] by the Court.” 13. The Commission considered that “in fact there is a possible discordance between different parts of the [J]udgment in the present case in what refers to Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa.” It also indicated that “the [J]udgment is clear in what refers to the quality of victim and injured party of [said] person […], as well as her right to receive a compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, but that since paragraph 220 does not establish the specific compensation set in her favor, this affects operative paragraph number 17 of the judgment.” Therefore, the Commission considered it correct for the Court to make the clarification requested “establishing the exact amount of the compensation that proceeds with regard to Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa.” 14. The Court observes that, as has been stated by the representatives, in the chapter of Facts Proven (paragraph 80(106)) of the Judgment of reference Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa was identified as Mr. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa’s sister; that her condition of victim due to the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5(1), 8(1), and 25 in relation with Article 1(1), all of the American Convention, was established in paragraphs 129 and 161 and in operative paragraphs 5 and 6 and operative paragraphs 5 and 6, and that in operative paragraph number 17 she is mentioned as beneficiary of a compensation for non-pecuniary damages. It is true that the Judgment does not include her name in the chapter on Reparations, in the section on Beneficiaries, paragraph 206(i), when determining the persons considered injured parties for the effects of the Judgment, or in the section on Non-Pecuniary Damages, paragraph 220, when determining the compensations corresponding to each of the beneficiaries. 15. However, with regard to the determination of the next of kin of the people killed or disappeared as “injured parties” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, paragraph 205 of the Judgment of the Court established that […] it considers as “injured parties” the next of kin of the mentioned people, in their own nature of victims of the violation to the rights enshrined in Articles 5(1), 8(1), and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same (supra paras. 129 and 161). 16. Likewise, in relation to payment of non-pecuniary damages in favor of the brothers and sisters of the missing or killed victims, paragraph 219(ii) the Tribunal considered it was necessary […] to order in equity […] the payment of the following amounts as compensation for the nonpecuniary damages caused due to the suffering of the next of kin of the 10 victims missing or killed, who are at the same time victims of the violation of their right to humane treatment (supra para. 129): […] ii. US$ 20.000,00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in the case of each sister or brother of the 10 victims missing or killed[.]