75 Juan José Blanco Garrido, Daniel Alfredo Guevara Ramos, Pedro Gustavo Guía Laya, Mercedes Beatriz Hernández Daza, Crisanto Mederos, Francisco Antonio Moncada Gutiérrez, Héctor Daniel Ortega Zapata, Richard José Páez Páez, Carlos Elías Parra Ojeda, José del Carmen Pirela León, José Vicente Pérez Rivas, Jorge Daniel Quintana, Wolfgang Waldemar Quintana Vivas, Yurima Milagros Ramos Mendoza, Iván Rey, Javier Rubén Rojas Campos, Esteban Luciano Rosillo García, Leobardo Antonio Salas Guillén, Tirso Cruz Tesara Álvarez, Héctor José Lugo Cabriles, Benito del Carmen Aldana Bastidas, Boris Eduardo Bolívar Marcano, Julio César Freitez, Gerónimo Valero Suárez, Jesús Calixto Blanco, Fidel Orlando Romero Castro, Roberto Segundo Valbuena Borjas, Elsa Teotiste Ramírez Caminero, José Ramón Montenegro Cordero, Jesús Alberto Cartaya, Sabas Reyes Gómez, Alís Guillermo Torres Flores, José Miguel Liscano Betancourt, Juan Acasio Mena Bello, Abelardo Antonio Pérez, Andrés Eloy Suárez Sánchez, Jesús Rafael Villalobos, Jesús Salvador Cedeño, Henry Eduardo Herrera Hurtado, Gregoria Matilde Castillo, and Noraima Sosa Ríos. 69. The aforementioned persons, insofar as victims, are entitled to reparation of damage caused by the violation of their rights. In the case of homicide victims and missing victims, the aforementioned right to reparation passes on to their next of kin, pursuant to the provisions of the relevant paragraphs of the instant Judgment (infra paras. 91, 93, 101 and 111). 70. Violations of human rights generally cause damage to persons other than those directly entitled to those rights, and this occurs, specifically, in connection with the next of kin of the victims (supra paras. 66.61 and 64.b). Such damages must also be redressed. 71. Pursuant to Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure in force,181 the expression next of kin refers to “the immediate family [of the victim], that is, the direct ascendants and descendants, siblings, spouses or permanent companions, or those determined by the Court, if applicable.” 72. The Court notes that due to the specificities of the instant case, including the substantial number of victims and the time elapsed since the facts occurred, it is difficult to establish precisely who the next of kin of the victims were or are, in terms of the meaning given to this expression by the Rules of Procedure. To establish this, the Court has proceeded as described in chapter IV of this Judgment under the title “Evidence” and, especially, paragraph 63.b of same. Nevertheless, the Court notes that in the instant case there are circumstances such as the following: a) the briefs on reparations refer to certain next of kin of the victims and state their names, without their existence nor their ties with said victims being supported by any other evidence supplied during the proceedings (such as birth certificates of the victims or their alleged next of kin, or statements before a notary public); b) the hypothesis dealt with in the previous subparagraph sometimes occurs with respect to statements made before a notary public: in some such 181 Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the November 24, 2000 Court Order, which entered into force on June 1, 2001.