7 the solution provided in case there were next of kin not included in that Judgment, allowing them to prove their right to compensation under the domestic legal order. Pleadings of the Commission 20. Regarding to the pleadings of the representatives regarding the individuals who were not included as beneficiaries in the Judgment, the Commission deemed that, insofar as said persons were not included under the situation foreseen by the Court regarding “next of kin for whom official documents were not supplied or the documents supplied do not prove the kinship” (paragraph 237 of the Judgment), when there is evidence in the file that said persons were injured as a consequence of the facts; of their kinship with the victims, and/or that they are heirs of the victims, “it would be useful to explicitly state that they are beneficiaries of the reparations.” Considerations of the Court 21. In the aforementioned Judgment (supra para. 6), specifically in the section on “beneficiaries” of the reparations, the Inter-American Court deemed that: 235. […] In accordance with its jurisprudence[…], this Court deems duly identified the next of kin of the missing persons and those deprived of their lives, the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, common-law spouses, daughters and sons, referred to in a document issued by a competent authority demonstrating their kinship, such as a birth certificate or a baptism certificate, submitted to this Court. 236. The next of kin of the victims will be entitled to the reparations ordered by the Court for non-pecuniary and/or pecuniary damages, as victims themselves of the violations found to the Convention, as well as those established by the Court as successors to the 37 missing victims or the six victims deprived of their lives. 237. Regarding to the next of kin of those who have not supplied official documentation or whose documents do not prove kinship, this Court orders that their compensation for non-pecuniary damages will follow the parameters set for the victims’ next of kin that were identified (supra para. 236 and infra para. 240), insofar as they appear before the competent authorities of the State, within twenty-four months of the date of notification of this Judgment, and supply the official information required to identify them and establish their kinship. […] 22. The Court notes that the matter raised by the representatives is limited to questioning the reasons why certain persons, presumably next of kin of the missing victims and those deprived of their lives, are not include in Appendix II of the Judgment as beneficiaries of compensations. It must be noted that, in their request for interpretation, the representatives make statements regarding the general conditions and only give certain “examples” of a list with 62 names of persons who would be under one of those conditions. Even if this Court limited itself to the specific cases mentioned by the representatives, this might lead the Court to review whether the documents submitted to the Court allow the existence and kinship of those persons to be proven according to the criteria set forth in the aforementioned paragraphs. In other words, their request for interpretation is not such a request at all, insofar as it does not address specific and concrete matters regarding the scope and meaning of the provisions of the Judgment, which require an interpretation by the Court, under the terms set forth in Articles 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and