101 d) next of kin of Bertila Lozano-Torres: Augusto Lozano-Lozano (father) and Juana Torres de Lozano (mother); e) next of kin of Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea: Víctor Andrés Ortiz-Torres (father), Magna Rosa Perea de Ortiz (mother), Andrea Gisela Ortiz-Perea (sister), Edith Luzmila Ortiz-Perea (sister), Gaby Lorena Ortiz-Perea (sister), Natalia Milagros Ortiz-Perea (sister), and Haydee Ortiz-Chunga (sister); f) next of kin of Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor: Alejandrina Raida CóndorSaez (mother), Hilario Jaime Amaro-Ancco (father), María Amaro-Cóndor (sister), Carlos Alberto Amaro-Cóndor (brother), Carmen Rosa Amaro-Cóndor (sister), Juan Luis Amaro-Cóndor (brother), Martín Hilario Amaro-Cóndor (brother), Francisco Manuel Amaro-Cóndor (brother), and Susana AmaroCóndor (sister); g) next of kin of Robert Edgar Espinoza: José Ariol Teodoro-León (padre), Edelmira Espinoza-Mory (mother), and Bertila Bravo-Trujillo (stepmother); h) next of kin of Heráclides Pablo-Meza: José Faustino Pablo-Mateo (father), Serafina Meza-Aranda (mother), and Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo (aunt); i) next of kin of Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa: Isabel Figueroa-Aguilar (mother), Román Mariños-Eusebio (father), Rosario Carpio Cardoso-Figueroa (brother), Viviana Mariños-Figueroa (sister), and Margarita Mariños-Figueroa de Padilla (sister), and j) next of kin of Felipe Flores-Chipana: Carmen Chipana de Flores (mother), and Celso Flores-Quispe (father). * * * 207. The Court considers that the irregular transfer of the investigation to the military jurisdiction amounted to the State’s failure to comply with its duty to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute and punish, those responsible for the facts, as well as a breach of the right to fair trial, embodied in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin (supra para. 145). Nevertheless, the Court cannot disregard the fact that the judgment issued by the CSJM on May 3, 1994 also ordered, inter alia, payment of compensation in the amount of 300,000.00 (three hundred thousand) Peruvian New Soles per each one of the ten victims, “as civil damages to the legal heirs of the aggrieved parties.” Thus, between 1996 and 1998, the State made payment of said amount to the legal heirs of the aforementioned ten victims (supra para. 80(56)). In this regard, the Court is aware of the principle under which compensation may neither enrich nor impoverish the victim or the victim’s beneficiaries (supra para. 202), and therefore this aspect needs to be analyzed. 208. Due to the fact that the aforementioned CSJM judgment did not clearly state on what account the victims’ heirs had been awarded said “civil damages,” the Court requested the parties to submit information and clarifications in that regard, to be used as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 36). In this regard, the State argued that, even though the judgment failed to expressly mention the legal grounds on which such damages were awarded, “in Peruvian military criminal law, civil damages cover both the