a) Regarding the victims to which the 8-month term established in paragraph 433(d) applies 63. In paragraphs 334 and following of the Judgment, the Court established the reasons why it concluded that the facts of the case constituted a violation to the right to humane treatment of certain next of kin of the inmates of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. The next of kin declared victims therein, with the only exception of some of the underage children of the inmates, were identified in Appendix 2 of the Judgment. Since the Court was not aware of the identity of all the inmates’ children, they were granted an 8-month term to appear before the competent state authorities, prove their relationship and age, and receive the corresponding compensation. The representatives requested a clarification regarding the situation of the next of kin of the inmates that were not declared victims in the Judgment and they asked if they can be compared to the situation of the inmates’ children that at the time of the facts were under the age of 18 in order to grant them the same 8-month term so they may appear before the national authorities and prove the alleged condition of victim. 64. As can be concluded from the reading of the corresponding paragraphs of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs and from the aforementioned, these are different suppositions and therefore clearly differentiated by the Tribunal. On one hand, in the case of the next of kin regarding which it was proven before the Court that they were outside the prison between May 6 and 9, 1992 and who witnessed the attack, or had to visit hospitals and morgues searching for their next of kin, or who suffered due to the strict solitary confinement and restriction of visits applied to the inmates, the Tribunal concluded that they suffered a violation to their right to humane treatment. The individual situation of these persons was analyzed and proven in the correct procedural moment before the Court. From the evidence provided by the parties to the process the result was a closed number of those next of kin declared victims and identified in Appendix 2 of the Judgment. The possible existence of next of kin that were not declared victims by the Court and regarding which it could be argued that they lived or were submitted to one of the factual suppositions mentioned that determined the breach of the right to humane treatment, this should have been proven in the appropriate procedural moment, specifically during the processing of the merits of the case. 65. On the other hand, the situation of the children under the age of 18 of the inmates of the Castro Castro Prison is different. The Court declared a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in detriment of every person who at the time of the facts was the underage child of an inmate because it understood that “the deprivation of contact and relationships with their inmate mothers,” as a consequence of the measures of solitary confinement applied by the State, violated the right to humane treatment of said children. The Court granted them an 8-month term to the mere effect of proving their relationship and age, since their condition of victims was established in the Judgment. What was suggested by the representatives (supra para. 58 subparagraph a) would open the possibility that other family members who the Court did not declare victims and that therefore are not considered in paragraph 433(d) or identified in Appendix II be considered as such, which is not established in the Judgment issued in the present case. 19