14 damage is normally done through a judgment of equity? 45. The inadmissibility of said burden of proof becomes even clearer in cases of grave violations of human rights: in said circumstance (v.g., in cases of massacres), this would be close to a true probatio diabolica,50 against which I have already stated my point of view, within this Court, in other circumstances, in my Concurring Opinion (paras. 20-23) in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Judgment of 03.29.2006). In my understanding, in cases of massacres, or grave violations, such as the present case of La Cantuta, it is not correct to demand additional evidence of a non-pecuniary damage from the next of kin of the victims, but instead presumptions should be applied in their favor. In my opinion, what is in order here is a presumption (at least juris tantum, if not, in more grave circumstances, juris et de jure), in benefit of the next of kin of the victims. 46. It is possible to imagine, as a general rule, that in our Latin American societies, where family ties are maintained tight (or at least tighter than in other post-industrial social environments), a brother or sister of a person massacred or disappeared will not undergo a personal suffering? Is it possible to imagine, as a general rule, that they will not continue to suffer in the case of a violent death of a brother or sister? Is it possible to imagine, as a general rule, that they will not continue to suffer in the event of a forced disappearance of a brother or sister? For me, this is unimaginable, as a general rule. Even so, this Court stated, in the present case of La Cantuta, that it requires additional evidence of the damage to the brothers or sisters of the people illegally detained, executed, and disappeared... 47. The present Judgment of Interpretation that the Court has adopted in the case of La Cantuta has duly clarified that Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza, sister and brother, respectively, of two of the fatal victims, Mr. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Heráclides Pablo Meza, are victims of violations to Articles 8(1) and 25 (taken jointly), of the American Convention. Therefore, they are ipso facto beneficiaries of different forms of non-pecuniary reparation ordered in the previous Judgment of 11.29.2006 in the present case of La Cantuta. In consequence, the amounts of pecuniary reparation were not affected by the inclusion of both, through the present Judgment of Interpretation as victims also of violations to the mentioned Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention. 48. But the same did not occur with regard to Article 5(1) of the Convention, since the Court applied the criterion – in my opinion mistaken – it established in the Judgment on merits and reparations of 11.29.2006 (para. 128, transcribed supra), according to which it demands evidence of the non-pecuniary damage, of the suffering, in order to consider the siblings (of the fatal victims) as victims of a violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, by their own right. Said criterion of “evidence of suffering” becomes, in my understanding, unsustainable, if not absurd, when facing facts of such gravity, - which are of public and notary knowledge, - such as those of the present case of La Cantuta. 49. As if this were not enough, Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza were the sister and brother of two fatal victims (Messrs. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa and Heráclides Pablo Meza) who were among those illegally and arbitrarily detained, executed, and they continue to be considered as missing. Under said circumstances, contrary to that stated by the Court in its Judgment of 11.29.2006 (para. 128) and in the present Judgment of Interpretation (paras. 30-31), the sister and brother of one and the other, as well as the sisters and brothers of the other fatal victims in the present case of La . For criticism of the latter, cf. my Concurring Opinion (paras. 20-23) in the Judgment (of 03.29.2006) in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. 50