14 authenticated. In other words, with regard to the following: Francisco Javier García Valle, Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña, John Jairo Valle Noreña, Jairo Alberto Londoño Del Valle, John Alberto Henao Valle, Franklin Henao Valle, Fredy Henao Valle, Mauricio Alberto Herrera Valle, Andrés Felipe Valle Villegas, Oscar Fernando Hoyos Jaramillo, Andrés Felipe Ochoa Jaramillo, Diego Alejandro Ochoa Jaramillo, Juan Gonzalo Jaramillo Mejía, Alejandro Jaramillo Mejía, Santiago Jaramillo Tobón, Juan Camilo Jaramillo Gutiérrez, César Augusto Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Jorge Mario Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Luís Jairo Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Marta Luz García Valle, Diana Patricia García Valle, María Victoria García Valle, Claudia María García Valle, Berta Lucía Valle Noreña, Luz Adriana Valle Noreña, Juliana Patricia Londoño Del Valle, Adriana María Londoño Del Valle, Jannette Henao Valle, Claudia Helena Herrera Valle, Liliana María Herrera Valle, Ana María Valle Villegas, Ana Catalina Hoyos Jaramillo, María Isabel Jaramillo Mejía, Juliana Jaramillo Tobón, Luisa María Gómez Jaramillo, Gabriela Gómez Jaramillo and Victoria Alejandra Gómez Jaramillo, the State indicated that their close affective ties had not been proved. 39. Regarding the “cousins and nephews and nieces of the direct victims” indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Court considers that a dispute subsists regarding their status as victims. The Court observes that the State failed to mention among the “cousins and nephews and nieces of the direct victims” José Miguel Jaramillo Gutiérrez, nephew of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, who appears in the evidence forwarded by the representatives as an attachment to the brief with pleadings and motions (infra para. 131), so that a dispute subsists with regard to whether he is a victim of the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention. 40. Moreover, the Court observes that the State did not recognize Gonzalo de Jesús Jaramillo Correa, who is another of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa’s siblings (infra para. 130), as a victim of the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, so that a dispute also subsists in this regard. 41. In addition, the Court observes that the State failed to mention Ana Carolina Jaramillo Correa, who is also Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa’s daughter, as a victim of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, so that a dispute subsists in this regard. 42. Furthermore, the State indicated that “the birth certificate of Gilma Valle Jaramillo (sister, deceased) (and as beneficiaries: John Alberto Henao Valle, Franklin Henao Valle, Fredy Henao Valle and Jeannette Henao) had not been provided.” Consequently, it argued that “the relationship with Jesús María Valle Jaramillo [had not been proved] or the date of her decease, in order to know whether she fulfils the requisites of injured party.” Accordingly, the Court finds that the dispute subsists regarding the status of victim or injured party of these individuals. 43. The State also contested “the claim of the representatives to include human rights defenders as new victims, because (i) [they] were not included as victims in the proceedings before the [Commission, and were not identified in the application], and (ii) a contentious case is not an actio popularis.” Consequently, the dispute on this point also subsists. * 44. * * Regarding the measures of reparation, as indicated above, the State affirmed that: It found that there were significant discrepancies as regards the claims made in the application and those in the brief with pleas, motions and evidence […]. Nevertheless, the State indicated that, in good faith, it had carried out some domestic acts of reparation and that it intended to compensate and provide satisfaction to the alleged victims and their next of kin, to repair the damage caused and to guarantee the non-repetition of acts of this significance and impact on society. In this regard, [it] outline[d] other complementary measures of reparation, consistent