24 [i]t is a norm common to most legal systems that a person's successors are his or her children. It is also generally accepted that the spouse has a share in the assets acquired during a marriage; some legal systems also grant the spouse inheritance rights along with the children. If there is no spouse or children, private common law recognizes the ascendants as heirs. It is the Court's opinion that these rules, generally accepted by the community of nations, should be applied in the instant case, in order to determine the victims' successors for purposes of compensation20. 68. On the other hand, the damage caused to other members of the victim’s family or to third parties, due to the death of the victim, may be claimed in their own right21. However, this Court has indicated that certain conditions must be met in order to constitute a damage and the resulting right to reparation; these include the existence of a relationship of effective, regular financial support between the victim and the claimant and the possibility of realistically presuming that this support would have continued if the victim had not died22. With regard to such claimants, the onus probandi corresponds to them, whether or not they are members of the victim’s family – and the expression “victim’s family” should be understood in an extensive form that covers all those persons closely related to him; in other words, his children, parents and siblings, who could be considered next of kin and have the right to receive a compensation, provided that they fulfill the requirements established by this Court’s jurisprudence23. It should also be recalled that, according to the most recent jurisprudence of the court, it may be presumed that the death of a person results in non-pecuniary damage to his siblings24. For the effects of the case sub judice, the reparations to the next of kin will be examined in the corresponding section, according to the circumstances of each of the victims and of the body of evidence that the parties have submitted to this Court. VII PROVEN FACTS 69. The Court will base itself on the facts admitted as proven in the judgment of November 19, 1999, in order to determine the measures of reparation that are in order in this case. Moreover, at this stage of the proceeding, the parties have submitted new elements of evidence in order to demonstrate the existence of complementary facts that are relevant for determining the measures of reparation. The Court has examined these elements and the arguments of the parties and finds that the following facts have been proved: 1) Concerning Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales: 20 Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 62. Also, cf. Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 60; and El Amparo case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 40. 21 cf. Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 1, para. 59; Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations, supra note 19, para. 50; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 54. 22 Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 67 and 68. 23 cf. Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations, supra note 12, para. 92; Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations, supra note 19, para. 52; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 71. 24 cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case. Reparations (Article 63(1) de the American Convention de Derechos Humanos). Series C No. 76, para. 110.