35 Arguments of the State 77. The State pointed out that while the Court has adopted criteria to establish the beneficiaries of the reparations, the State can contribute some provisions of its Civil Code and of domestic family law, which it believes should be taken into account to identify them. It also stated that to establish the beneficiaries of the reparations it would be necessary to take into account the closeness of family ties, the specific circumstances of relations with the victim, the conditions of the next of kin as witness to the facts, the way he or she became involved in attempts to obtain information, and the reply given by the State to the steps taken. Considerations of the Court 78. The Court will now establish the person or persons who are the “injured party,” in the instant case, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. The criterion followed by this Court was that of presuming that death of a person causes non-pecuniary damage to the closest members of his or her family, especially those who were in close emotional contact with the victim.52 In this regard, it is appropriate to note that Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure53 states that the term “next of kin of the victim” must be understood as a broad concept that includes all persons linked through close kinship, including the parents, siblings and grandparents, who might have a right to compensation, insofar as they meet the requirements set forth in the case law of this Court.54 79. In light of the agreement for a friendly settlement, in which the State acknowledged its international responsibility, the Court notes that there is no controversy between the parties regarding who are the victims, beneficiaries, and next of kin in the instant case.55 It is the understanding of this Court that the violations of the American Convention were committed against Walter David Bulacio, Víctor David Bulacio (the father), Graciela Rosa Scavone (the mother), Lorena Beatriz Bulacio (his sister) and María Ramona Armas de Bulacio (the grandmother on his father’s side). All of them should be considered encompassed under the category of victims and entitled to reparations set by the Court, regarding both pecuniary damage, when appropriate, and non-pecuniary damage. As regards Walter David Bulacio and Víctor David Bulacio, their right to reparation will pass on to their heirs through inheritance, in the manner stated above (infra 85, 86, 103 and 104). 52 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 156; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 5, paras. 54-55; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 57. 53 Pursuant to Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the term “next of kin” means “the immediate family, that is, the direct ascendants and descendants, siblings, spouses or permanent companions, or those determined by the Court, if applicable.�� 54 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 156; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 5, paras. 54 and 55; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 57. 55 Cf., Durand and Ugarte Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). December 3, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 89, para. 27.