18 Judgment of November 3, 1997, this Court recognized Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez’ next of kin as victims. 60. Therefore, this Court considers the beneficiaries to be Mr. Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo, Ms. Carmen Rosa Warton-Páez, and Ms. Mónica Inés Castillo-Páez. * * * REPRESENTATION 61. On February 25, 1998, the parents of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez submitted a power of attorney granted on February 19, 1998, to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL). In its brief of observations of May 11, 1998, the State argued that that power of attorney was invalid, since it was a letter that had been neither "certified or legalized by an authority of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, where it was apparently draft[ed."] The State further argued that inasmuch as the members of the Castillo-Páez family were Peruvian citizens, they were "obliged to comply with the requirements of Peruvian law when conferring their representation by way of a power of attorney." Peru also stated that if the people in question were living in the Netherlands, they should have used the "identification documents that the Netherlands provides to aliens living within its territory." Finally, it pointed out that Ms. Mónica Inés CastilloPáez had not signed the power of attorney to be represented in this stage of the proceeding, nor was representation given to "Human Rights Watch/Americas" (HRW). 62. On June 4, 1998, the victim’s next of kin submitted another power of attorney, this one made by the parents and sister of the victim on May 22, 1998, and signed in the presence of a notary public in the Netherlands. 63. On July 20, 1998, the State objected to that power of attorney using the same arguments that it had used against the power of attorney of February 19, 1998. The State’s contention was that the representatives were not authorized to make representations on behalf of the next of kin of Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez at the time the reparations petition was made through the brief of February 25, 1998, since the "confirmation" "that the power of attorney of May 22, 1998 was meant to be did not validate the February power of attorney or have any effect at all." It argued further that in that "confirmation" Mónica Inés Castillo-Páez appeared “as if she had been a party to the first power of attorney, which is flatly inconsistent and lacking in legal efficacy. " 64. In this case, the Court must weigh the two powers of attorney given by the victim’s next of kin at different times: the first, given by the parents of the victim on February 19, 1998, in Utrecht, the Netherlands, to Viviana Krsticevic of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and to Ronald Gamarra of the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL); and the second, given on May 22, 1998 in the Netherlands, whereby the parents and the sister of the victim as well "confirm" the power of broad representation vis-à-vis the Court given to the following institutions: the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) and Human Rights Watch/Americas (HRW). 65. The practice of this Court with regard to the rules of representation has always been flexible vis-à-vis States, the Inter-American Commission and, during