obtained reparation after signing a conciliation agreement with the Ministry of Defense that was endorsed by the Council of State.7 […] 336. Taking into account that the contentious courts have established reparations in this case based on what the victims claimed and even conciliated, and in keeping with the principle of complementarity, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to order additional monetary reparations, for either pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage in favor of the next of kin of the victims who died, or of those injured during the events, who have already received reparation under the domestic system of justice.”8 18. In addition, in paragraph 337 of the Judgment a mechanism was indeed established so that determined victims could receive at the domestic level, rapidly and directly and if appropriate, the compensation and indemnities for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. This paragraph indicates: Nevertheless, the Court must determine the situation of the injured victims (supra para. 335), as well as of five family members of two deceased victims,9 and the next of kin of the injured victims, who did not have recourse to the domestic contentious-administrative jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court finds that the State must grant and execute, within one year and using a prompt domestic mechanism, the pertinent compensation and indemnities for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as appropriate, which must be established based on the objective, reasonable and effective criteria of the Colombian contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The next of kin of victims who consider that they are beneficiaries of the provisions of this paragraph should approach the corresponding State authorities within three months at the latest of notification of this Judgment.”10 19. Thus, paragraph 337 of the Judgment established a mechanism so that three groups of victims could claim the corresponding reparations promptly: (i) the injured victims; (ii) five family members of two deceased victims, and (iii) the next of kin of the injured victims. In other words, it is clear that the heirs of the 16 victims of violations of the right to life are not included in these categories that establish the requirements for having recourse to the domestic mechanism established in the said paragraph 337. 20. The Court recalls that, before this case was submitted to its consideration, the domestic courts had already established compensation in favor of the next of kin of the victims who died during the events, based on what these next of kin had requested, and even conciliated, as reparation for various aspects of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that they had suffered in relation to the death of their family members. Hence, and as indicated in paragraph 336 of the Judgment, the Court found that, based on the principle of complementarity, it was not in order to establish additional pecuniary reparations, for either pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage in favor of those who were able to file their claims and had received reparation at the domestic level. 21. In addition, it is true that, in other cases that involve violations of the right to life, the Court has established reparations of a pecuniary nature for certain aspects of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the victim directly affected by the facts of 7 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 334. 8 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 336. 9 Nerys Duarte Cárdenas (permanent companion of Carmen Antonio Díaz), Andersson Duarte Cárdenas (son of Carmen Antonio Díaz), Davinson Duarte Cárdenas (son of Carmen Antonio Díaz), Lucero Talero Sánchez (permanent companion of Levis Orlando Martínez Carreña) and María Elena Carreño (sister of Levis Orlando Martínez Carreña). 10 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 337. 6