74 VI BENEFICIARIES 67. Given the complexity of the instant case, the Court deems it appropriate to establish that, pursuant to the judgment on the merits, the instant case refers to several categories of victims, constituted as follows: a) 35 homicide victims with respect to whom the State was found to be responsible in the judgment on the merits –the whereabouts of several of the mortal remains of these victims is not known- (supra paras. 66.17 to 66.51); b) two missing victims due to facts in connection with which the State was also found to be responsible in the judgment on the merits, and who, for purposes of the reparations to be ordered, are considered to be dead (supra paras. 66.52 and 66.53); c) three surviving victims, whose right to humane treatment was gravely violated during the development of the facts, the State having been found responsible in this regard in the judgment on the merits (supra paras. 66.58 to 66.60); d) four victims who presumably died in the context of the facts of the instant case, without the Court’s judgment on the merits having found the State to be responsible in this regard, although it did establish that these persons’ rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were violated (supra paras. 66.54 to 66.57); e) the next of kin of the 44 victims, whose rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were found, pursuant to the judgment on the merits, to have been violated. For sake of clarity of terminology, the instant Judgment uses the expression “victims” to refer to the persons included under subparagraphs a), b), c) and d) of this paragraph, and the expressions “next of kin” or “next of kin of the victims” to refer to persons included under subparagraph e), even though strictly speaking said next of kin are also victims in this case, insofar as their rights under articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were violated. 68. The Court found, in operative paragraph two of the judgment on the merits issued on November 11, 1999, that the State violated several of the rights protected by the American Convention, to the detriment of the 44 individuals listed in paragraph 1 of that judgment, who are the following persons: Miguel Ángel Aguilera La Rosa, Armando Antonio Castellanos Canelón, Luis Manuel Colmenares Martínez, and Carmen Rufina Cabriles in favor of Lilliana Ortega Mendoza before the Twenty-Ninth Notary Public of Libertador Municipality of the Federal District, Caracas, Venezuela; and special power of attorney granted on April 25, 2001 by Lilliana Ortega Mendoza, as Executive Director of COFAVIC and proxy for the next of kin of the victims, in favor of José Miguel Vivanco, Viviana Krsticevic and María Claudia Pulido before the Twenty-Ninth Notary Public of Libertador Municipality of the Federal District, Caracas, Venezuela; three evidence files in El Caracazo Case, under the title “appendices with evidence submitted by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin together with the brief on Reparations,” at the Secretariat of the Court, and evidence file in El Caracazo Case, under the title “Documentation backing alleged expenses filed by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, August 13, 2002 brief,” at the Secretariat of the Court; and processing file for the Reparations stage in El Caracazo Case, at the Secretariat of the Court, volume IV, sheets 1134 to 1143.