8 59 of the Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 4, 5 and 9 to 11), but rather it seeks to examine factual matters that were already analyzed and decided in the Judgment. Therefore, the Court finds the request for interpretation filed by the representatives to be out or order, because it is not in accordance with the terms set forth in said provisions. 23. Notwithstanding the above, the Court deems it appropriate to recall that in the instant case there were numerous difficulties regarding identification of the next of kin of the 43 victims deprived of their lives or missing. The lists of alleged victims and next of kin supplied by the Commission and the representatives, respectively in the application and in the written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “written brief containing pleadings and motions”), were different and, in some cases, the documents supplied were unreadable, incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to prove the existence or kinship of certain persons with the missing victims or those deprived of their lives. In face of said situation, the Court conducted a painstaking examination of the evidence submitted by the Commission and the representatives, to gather all the items required to precisely identify the alleged victims and their next of kin, and it also asked the representatives to submit additional documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication. After finding the violation of Articles 5(1), 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of “the next of kin individually identified in this proceeding” (paragraph 162), the Court ordered reparations, considering the “injured party” to be those next of kin of the 43 victims who had been adequately identified. To establish the next of kin, that is the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, common-law spouses, daughters and sons, the Court took into account the documents “issued by competent authorities” that demonstrated their kinship with the former, such as birth certificates or baptism certificates, based on what was effectively supplied by the parties during the proceeding (paragraph 235 of the Judgment). 24. Thus, the Court established, based on the aforementioned criteria and on the suitable documents supplied by the parties, those relationships of kinship with the victims that were adequately identified in the proceeding before the Court, whose names and kinship were set forth in Appendix II of the Judgment, and it ordered the respective reparations. However, given the possible existence of other next of kin of the victims who were not adequately identified in this international proceeding, in the terms set forth in the Judgment, the Court adopted the provisions embodied in paragraphs 237 and 250, to safeguard their right to claim reparations for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage suffered. 25. Therefore, regarding compensation for material damages, the Court “refrain[ed] from ordering compensation in favor of the next of kin of the 37 missing persons and the six persons deprived of their lives, in this proceeding, regarding to other pecuniary losses they may have suffered. However, the Court “ma[de] it clear that establishment of reparations in this international venue neither obstructs nor precludes the possibility of the next of kin making the pertinent claims before the national authorities” (paragraph 250 of the Judgment). 26. In a similar vein, regarding to non-pecuniary damages, paragraph 237 of the Judgment ordered that the next of kin “for whom official documents were not supplied or the documents supplied d[id] not prove the kinship,” they could receive “the compensation they are entitled to for non-pecuniary damages,” according to “the parameters for the victims’ next of kin who were identified [...] insofar as they