8 a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against the victims, the situations lived by some of them within this context, and the subsequent actions and omissions of the state authorities, violate the right to humane treatment of the victims’ next of kin regarding the facts of the present case. […] 127. The Court considers it necessary to point out that the victim Heráclides Pérez Meza lived with his aunt, Mrs. Dina Flormelania Pablo Mateo, for more than seven years, since he moved to Lima to carry out his college studies. Likewise, the victim, Dora Oyague Fierro lived, since she was a little girl, with her father and her paternal uncles, specifically, Mrs. Carmen Oyague Velazco and Mr. Jaime Oyague Velazco. Besides, the victim Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza was raised by his father and by Mrs. Bertila Bravo Trujillo. In the three cases, once the victims disappeared, said next of kin started their search and presented, in some cases, judicial actions before the authorities; that is, they faced the obstructive justice system, suffering the direct effects of the same (supra para. 80(19) through 80(21) and 80(24)). 128. The Court also observes that both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives indicated that different brothers and sisters of the people killed or missing were alleged victims of the violation to Article 5 of the Convention. However, in several of these cases sufficient evidence was not presented to allow the Tribunal to establish a true damage regarding said next of kin. Therefore, the Court considers as victims the brothers and sisters regarding which there is sufficient evidence in this regard. [(emphasis added)] 31. That is, not enough evidence was presented to allow the tribunal to establish that Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza were victims of the alleged violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention (paragraph 129). The same occurs with Messrs. Celina Pablo Meza, Cristina Pablo Meza, Wil Eduardo Mariños Figueroa, Marilú Lozano Torres, Jimmy Anthony Lozano Torres, Miguel Lozano Torres, Augusto Lozano Torres, Celestino Eugencio Rosales Cárdenas, Saturnina Julia Rosales Cárdenas, Ronald Daniel Taboada Fierro, Gustavo Taboada Fierro, Luz Beatriz Taboada Fierro, and Rita Ondina Oyague Sulca, who were not declared victims of said violation either, despite having proven that they were siblings of the victims. According to that established in Article 63(1) of the Convention, “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated.” That is, the injured party is made up by those people that have been declared victims in the Judgment and in favor of who the Tribunal “[w]ill order[…] that the consequences of the measure or situation that have made up the violation of those rights be repaired.” Thus, the Court ordered different forms of reparation, among them payment in equity of compensations for the non-pecuniary damage caused to the next of kin of the 10 missing or executed victims who were at the same time victims of the violation of the right to humane treatment (paragraph 219). Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza were not in that situation. 32. The Court has established that a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot consist in the presentation of matters of fact and law that were already presented on their procedural opportunity and regarding which the Tribunal already adopted a decision.4 When questioning the reasons why Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza were not considered as victims of the violation of the rights to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the American Convention), or as beneficiaries of compensations for non-pecuniary damages, the representatives want the Court to reconsider through the interpretation of matters regarding the assessment of the evidence, as well as the determination of victims of the violations declared; of the injured party and the reparations 4 Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 4, para. 14, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 4, para. 28.