-1113. That the representatives have consulted the Court about “the distribution of the compensation ordered in favor of Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya,” who died after the judgment had been delivered, and who was a brother of the victim, Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya (supra Having seen paragraph 9). 14. That, the Court considers it advisable to elucidate the matter raised by the representatives in order to contribute to the proper execution of the judgment. To respond to the inquiry, the Court will refer to: (1) the distribution of the compensation ordered by the Court for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the victim, Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya,7 and what should be done with the amount that would have corresponded to Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya, as a brother of the said victim; and (2) the distribution of the compensation that the Court ordered in favor of Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya, derived from the non-pecuniary damage that he himself suffered.8 In its reply to this inquiry, the Court will base itself on the provisions of paragraphs 230 and 231 of the judgment. 15. That, regarding the first point above, paragraph 230 of the judgment establishes how “the compensation for loss of earnings and non-pecuniary damage that corresponds to the 19 victims shall be distributed among their next of kin.” In the judgment, the Court established that the next of kin of the victim, Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya were his mother, father, and eleven siblings, one of whom was Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya;9 in other words, Rubén Emilio had neither a wife nor children. Consequently, in order to distribute the amount corresponding to Rubén Emilio as compensation for loss of earnings and nonpecuniary damage, the provisions of paragraph 230(d) of the judgment should be respected. This stipulates that “in the case of the victim who did not have either children or spouse or permanent companion, the compensation shall be distributed as follows: fifty per cent (50%) to his parents and the remaining fifty per cent (50%) to be shared in equal parts among his siblings.” The question that now arises concerns what happens to the amount that Jorge Enrique should have received when the 50% was shared out among the 11 siblings. In their brief, the representatives affirm that they understand that his part should be distributed among the other siblings (supra Having seen paragraph 9). However, this cannot be inferred from any of the subparagraphs of paragraph 230, as can be inferred, for example, in the case of the death of the father or the mother, in which case it is expressly stipulated that “if one of the parents has died, the part that corresponded to him or her shall accrue to the other.” Regarding the provisions of paragraph 230(e), this is applicable “if there are no next of kin in one or some of the categories defined in the previous subparagraphs,” which is not applicable in this case, since the victim, Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya, had next of kin in the categories of both “parents” and “siblings.” Consequently, to determine what to do with the amount that would have corresponded to Jorge Enrique when the said 50% was shared among the 11 siblings, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of paragraph 231 of the judgment. 16. That paragraph 231 of the judgment establishes what to do if any of the next of kin of the victims, who have a right to compensation “has died,” in the understanding that “has died” refers to before payment of the respective compensation and is not limited to the next of kin who have died before the delivery of the Court’s judgment. This paragraph stipulates 7 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 240, 243 and 252. 8 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 252 in fine. 9 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 235.