5 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Certain siblings of the victims are listed, while others are not despite the fact that the pertinent documents were sent in a timely manner to demonstrate their situation. These are the cases, for example, of the siblings of Camilo Antonio Durango Moreno. Siblings deceased after the disappearance of the victim are recognized as beneficiaries of the compensation. However, certain siblings in this same situation regarding to the victims were not included. This is the case, for example, of the brother of Camilo Antonio Durango Moreno, Belarmino Durango Moreno. This person committed suicide, according to the mother’s statement before the Court, due to the depression caused by his brother’s disappearance. Certain children of the victims were included, while others were not, despite the fact that they were also mentioned and their situation demonstrated before the Court. This is the case, for example, of Yenedeth Petro Pérez, daughter of José Manuel Petro Hernández. In the Judgment, the Court recognized the situation of children of the victims who were born after the disappearance of their fathers. However, in other cases, in the same situation, children who were subsequently born were not included. That is the case, for example, of Sandra Patricia Julio, daughter of Miguel Ángel Gutiérrez Arrieta. Certain next of kin are included as beneficiaries of one of the victims, and they were not mentioned in connection with another of their siblings. This is the case of the disappearance of two half-brothers regarding to whom the brothers are the same. That is the situation in the case of Ana Diva Arroyo, mentioned as a beneficiary of José del Carmen Álvarez, but not as beneficiary of Cristóbal Arroyo Blanco. Several common-law spouses who were shown to be living with the victim, by means of statements rendered out of court, were not included. This is the case, for example, of Elvira Julio, permanent common-law spouse of Miguel Ángel Gutiérrez Arrieta. The Court was able to verify that there were various types of kinship relations between the victims and their next of kin. Some victims were the permanent common-law spouses of a woman who was also the sister of one of the missing victims. When it listed the beneficiaries, the Court did not include this person in one of those relationships. This is the case, for example, of Rafaela Pérez, sister of Benito José Pérez Pedroza and wife of José Manuel Petro Hernández. In the Judgment, Rafaela is not mentioned as a beneficiary of her brother despite being in one of the categories defined by the Court. Another situation found is that of the omission of one of the children of the victims, who appeared before the Court and testified during the hearing to gather evidence, and whose situation was demonstrated with the documents required, and nevertheless is not among the beneficiaries. This is the case of Ángel Emiro Jiménez, son of Ángel Benito Jiménez Julio. 17. The representatives also asked the Court, when it issues the ruling on interpretation, to declare that the persons listed in the appendix to their request for interpretation are beneficiaries of the compensation under the same conditions as those listed in the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs, based on their proven kinship. 18. Finally, the representatives alleged that in Appendix II of the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs there were “some mistakes regarding the names of certain beneficiaries that might cause difficulty in their claims before the Colombian authorities,” for which reason they asked the Court to clarify: a) the name of Elida Fuentes Marimón, sister of Wilson Uberto Fuentes Marimón, who allegedly appears in said appendix under the name Eliy Calixto Fuentes Marimón, as his sister, and