141 with Article 1(1) of that same Convention. Based on the body of evidence, the Court finds that among those victims the following have been identified: José Rolan Valencia, Sinaí Blanco Santamaría, Antonio María Barrera, Hugo Fernando Martínez Contreras, Diego Armando Martínez Contreras, Gustavo Caicedo Rodríguez, Enrique Pinzón López, Luis Eduardo Pinzón López, Jorge Pinzón López, José Alberto Pinzón López, Jaime Riaño Colorado and Álvaro Tovar Muñoz. 254. Also, information supplied by the State in its brief with final pleadings and in an April 6, 2005 document signed by the Attorney General’s Office, points out that the following persons have been individually identified in the criminal proceeding: Jaime Pinzón, Raúl Morales, Edwin Morales, Manuel Arévalo, Omar Patiño Vaca, Eliécer Martínez Vaca and Uriel Garzón, as well as Ana Beiba Ramírez, as victims of the facts in Mapiripán (supra para. 96.52). In view of this, the Court appreciates the proven willingness of the State to cooperate by providing the names of those persons, which entails admitting that they are victims of the massacre, and based on this it will set the appropriate compensations. 255. On the other hand, the information supplied in the case provides the names of two possible victims of the Mapiripán Massacre: Néstor Orlando Flórez Escucha (supra paras. 96.131 and 96.128) and Wilson Molina Paredes. The appendixes to the application filed by the Commission include a complaint filed jointly on July 19, 1999 before the Administrative Law Court of Meta by the next of kin of Sinaí Blanco Santamaría and Néstor Orlando Flórez Escucha, in which they refer to the death of the former and the alleged disappearance of the latter during the facts in Mapiripán. Despite this, neither the Commission nor the representatives argued that Néstor Orlando Flórez Escucha was a victim of the massacre, and they did not include him or his next of kin in their claims regarding reparations. Thus, given the need for evidence to facilitate adjudication, the Court asked the State and the representatives to explain whether said person was an alleged victim of the massacre, as well as the reason why the next of kin had withdrawn said complaint. Despite said explicit request, when the representatives replied they sent a copy of said complaint, which was already part of the body of evidence, and they stated that “since the Colectivo de Abogados was not involved in said proceeding, they [had] no information available.” The State, in turn, supplied as evidence to facilitate adjudication, the ruling by the Administrative Court of Meta that approved the aforementioned settlement agreements and that accepted the withdrawal of the claims of the application filed by the next of kin of Néstor Orlando Flórez Escucha (supra para. 96.131). Furthermore, in its September 2, 2005 brief regarding the Court’s request for evidence to facilitate adjudication, the State reported that the next of kin of Wilson Molina Paredes had reached a friendly settlement in that venue, but they contributed no document attesting to said agreement. In other words, the Court does not have sufficient information to clearly establish that Néstor Flórez Escucha and Wilson Molina Paredes were victims executed or made to disappear during the Mapiripán Massacre. In view of the above, the Court will not consider them victims in the instant Judgment and therefore will order no compensation for them or their next of kin, without detriment to the possibility, if it is subsequently established that they are victims, of the next of kin appearing before the official mechanism established to claim their rights (infra para. 311). 256. This Court also finds that all the next of kin of the approximately 49 victims are “injured parties”, as victims themselves of the abridgment of the rights embodied in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention (supra paras. 146 and 241); said next of kin