85 XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) The Commission’s arguments 134. 135. Regarding the beneficiaries, the Commission: (a) Stated it its application that, given the nature of this case, the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court as a result of the human rights violations perpetrated by the State in this case are: Dr. Agustín Goiburú Giménez, his wife, his two sons and his daughter; Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, his mother, his wife, his daughter and his son; the brothers Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, two sisters and two brothers; (b) Alleged, in its final written arguments, that 11 additional persons to those mentioned in the application were “victims of the violations established”; (c) Informed the Court that the petitioners had forwarded information about five nieces and nephews of the Ramírez Villalba brothers, children of Julio Darío Ramírez Villalba. In this respect, it requested that the Court consider them beneficiaries, should it accept that they are injured parties. Regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Commission: (a) Requested the Court to order the State to repair the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the victims and their next of kin; (b) Asked the Court to established, based on the equity principle, the amount of the compensation corresponding to indirect damage and loss of earnings. In this regard, it requested the Court to take into account that the next of kin suffered multiple consequences, including the loss of their sons, fathers, husbands or brothers, as applicable, and, in many cases, these individuals supported the household financially. Also, it stated that, as a result of the facts, the next of kin had suffered significant and critical pecuniary losses, because they stopped receiving the usual and necessary income for their subsistence and incurred expenses relating to discovering the whereabouts of their family members and obtaining justice; (c) Stated that the victims’ next of kin have received no compensation from the State, so that their right to reparation as a result of the international illegal act subsists integrally and it corresponds to the Inter-American Court rather than the national courts to establish this, based on the principle of equity; (d) Stated that it does not consider that the salary received by Dr. Agustín Goiburú’s son for his work in the Paraguayan Ministry of Foreign Affairs can be considered part of the reparation that must be paid by the State to Agustín Goiburú’s next of kin;