6 23. Regarding the representative’s request, even though it does not correspond strictly to a supposition of interpretation of the Judgment, the Court has verified in the documents presented, and the State itself has declared, that the full name of the mentioned individual is in effect Carmen Antonia Oyague Velazco de Huaman, which includes her married name. Therefore, the State must be asked to take this clarification into account for the effects of compliance with the Judgment. VI REGARDING THE SITUATION OF MRS. CARMEN JUANA MARIÑOS FIGUEROA AND MR. MARCELINO MARCOS PABLO MEZA 24. The representatives asked for the clarification of the reasons why Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza, despite having been identified in the chapter on “Proven Facts” as the sister and brother, respectively, of Messrs. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa and Heráclides Pablo Meza, were not considered as victims of the violation of the rights to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the American Convention and to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention) or as an “injured party”, since they are not mentioned in the chapter on Reparations or as “beneficiaries of compensations for non-pecuniary damages,” since they are not mentioned in the seventeenth operative paragraph either 25. The State considered that, “since the Court […] has been very clear in its criteria when determining the beneficiaries of the compensations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages[…], it must be the one to explain the exclusion practiced […] as ‘injured party’ and beneficiaries of reparations.” 26. The Commission observed that “in paragraphs 67 and following of the [J]udgment, the Court assessed the evidence presented with regard to the next of kin of the victims of the present case [and that] in the section regarding the violation of Article 5 [… it made] considerations in reference to the next of kin of the victims missing or killed when determining who [were] victims of [this] violation.” The Commission expressed that “[d]espite the fact that specific consideration regarding [Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza] were not made in any of said sections, in paragraph 128 of its Judgment the Tribunal made considerations in general in what refers to the situation of the brothers and sisters of some victims.” Finally, the Commission considered that “the Court could consider it useful to proceed with the interpretation requested.” 27. In this matter, the Court has been asked to clarify the reasons why Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza were not declared victims of the violations to Articles 5(1), 8(1), and 25 of the Convention or, consequently, beneficiaries of reparations, despite the fact that is was proven that they were next of kin of two of the victims. To determine if this matter should be clarified, it is important to remember that decided in the Judgment in this sense. 28. First of all, the Tribunal made a series of considerations in limine litis in the chapter on Evidence, section of Assessment of the Evidence (paragraphs 67 through 79), to determine who of the next of kin of the victims would have the condition of alleged victims for the effects of the proceedings before the Court. Of these considerations, it is appropriate to point out the following: