2 10. The second qualification is that I still consider acceptable a presumption that the spouse and minor or handicapped children were economically dependent on the victim and could therefore claim indemnification, without needing to prove the damage suffered. However, to extend that presumption to the parents seems somewhat far-fetched and contrary to what normally occurs in reality. 11. In the case of María del Carmen Santana, I am of the view that account should be taken of the fact that there is no record of any ties between the deceased and the person claiming to be her mother, that there is no evidence that they ever shared a home or that the victim ever contributed to that home, that she had any contact with the claimant, or that the latter was in any way her dependent, or a potential dependent for that matter. 12. In the light of the above, I feel that the circumstances indicated are those on which the Court based its decision to deny reparation for material damages caused by the death of María del Carmen Santana since, furthermore, there is no evidence that she had a spouse or children and since the only application is being submitted by the person claiming to be her mother. 13. The views expressed in the preceding paragraph apply exclusively to material damage, considering, as I do, that moral damage should be presumed and that such damage is caused by the very fact of death. I agree that indemnification for moral damage be granted in the instant case and that it be paid to the person who supplies proof of the closes kinship to María del Carmen Santana. Alejandro Montiel-Argüello Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary