-77Cruz, Enrique Serrano Cruz (deceased), Martha Serrano Cruz, Arnulfo Serrano Cruz, Oscar Serrano Cruz and Rosa Serrano Cruz, because it has not been proved that they were affected by the alleged facts of the disappearance of their sisters[; since,] as they did not testify or prove their alleged suffering, this cannot be presumed.” Considerations of the Court 142. The Court will now proceed to determine who should be considered “injured parties” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 143. First, the Court considers that Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz are the “injured party,” as direct victims of the violations of the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof; consequently they will be beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court establishes for non-pecuniary damage. 144. Furthermore, the next of kin of the victims will be beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court establishes as direct victims of the violations of the rights embodied in Articles 5, 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court considers that María Victoria Cruz Franco, mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, and also their siblings, Martha, Suyapa, Arnulfo, José Fernando, María Rosa and Oscar, all Serrano Cruz, are entitled to reparation, as the injured party in this case. Since Ernestina and Erlinda’s father died in 1985, prior to the date of which El Salvador accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, and four of Ernestina and Erlinda’s siblings, namely Socorro, Irma, José Enrique and Juan, all Serrano Cruz, also died before that date, none of them is considered a victim of the violations that have been declared, or a beneficiary of the reparations established in this judgment. 145. The mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, and their siblings Martha, Suyapa, Arnulfo, José Fernando, María Rosa and Oscar, all Serrano Cruz, will also be the beneficiaries of any reparations that the Court establishes, in their capacity of injured party as a direct consequence of the violations committed to the detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda. In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is presumed that an individual’s suffering causes non-pecuniary damage to their parents and siblings, and it is not necessary to prove this.42 146. With regard to the compensation that would correspond to María Victoria Cruz Franco, Ernestina and Erlinda’s mother, the Court has stated and will repeat that the right to compensation for the damage suffered by the victims up until the time of her death is transmitted by succession to her heirs, and that it is a common rule in most legislations that a person’s heirs are their children.43 B) PECUNIARY DAMAGE 42 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 197; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 229; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 19, paras. 169 and 169(b). 43 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 198; Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations, supra note 4, para. 49; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 8, para. 85.