71 233. In this regard, the Court notes that Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his or her right or freedom that was violated”. This means that anyone who has been deprived of a right or freedom established in the Convention is an injured party. Once the identity of the persons injured by the events in the case has been determined the Court “shall also rule, if appropriate, […] that fair compensation be paid” to those persons, in fine, under Article 63(1) of the Convention. It is in this second step, in deciding whether any compensation must be awarded, that the Court shall take into account compensation granted by the State. (infra para. 239, 245 to 250, 254 to 257, and 265 to 273). 234. In this case, the Court considers Mariela Morales Caro, Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino, Virgilio Hernández Serrano, Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Arnulfo Mejía Duarte, Samuel Vargas Páez, Arturo Salgado Garzón, Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castilla and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas, to be injured parties in their character as victims of the violations of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (supra para. 140); the last three individuals listed above are also victims of violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same (supra para. 225). The next of kin to these victims, identified in the Appendix to this Judgment, are also injured parties and victims of the violation of the rights established in Articles 5, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same (supra para. 141 and 225). 235. These individuals are entitled to the reparations that the Court establishes, due to their status as victims of the violations mentioned above. The victims’ next of kin shall also be entitled to all such reparations as the Court determines due to their status as successors of the twelve deceased victims. 236. The Court notes that in the list of beneficiaries submitted by the representatives in their written closing arguments, the representatives included Franey Amparo Guasca Vargas and Orlando Guasca Vargas as next of kin of deceased victim Benhur Iván Guasca Castro. The Court will not consider Franey Amparo Guasca Vargas or Orlando Guasca Vargas as an injured party because: they were not timely included in the proceedings; no explanation was presented to justify their late inclusion; they did not indicate their relationship to the deceased victim; and they did not attach proof of their identity or affectionate relationship with the victim. 237. With regard to the distribution of indemnities to the family members of the deceased victims, for material and immaterial injuries, the Court, in accordance with criteria used in other cases,238 decides that it will be done in the following manner: a) fifty percent (50%) of the compensation shall be distributed equally among the victim’s children; b) fifty percent (50%) of the compensation shall be paid to the victim’s spouse or permanent companion at the time of the victim’s death; 238 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 421; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 148; and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 122.