85 respect the judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Antioquia Specialized Circuit of April 22, 2003.187 Fourth, regarding Arcadio Londoño, Francisco Eladio Ortiz Bedoya, Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio, Nelson de Jesús Palacio Cárdenas and Omar Iván Gutiérrez Nohavá, the State forwarded evidence of the conciliation agreements by which the State compensated them for pecuniary damage arising from the loss of their property. Fifth, several testimonies were provided at both the domestic level and before this Court that prove repeatedly the identity of the persons who lost their property in El Aro (supra para. 125(81)). Lastly, the foregoing is reinforced by the fact that the representatives mentioned these persons as alleged victims, presenting lists and evidence identifying the victims of the violation of the right to property in the briefs they submitted to the Court. 185. In view of the above, the Court finds that, in addition to the six persons mentioned in the application and included in the State’s acquiescence, the victims of the violation of Article 21 of the Convention are indicated in Appendix III of this judgment. 186. In the report it issued under Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission indicated the following twelve (12) persons and their next of kin as alleged victims of the violation of Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention: Jahel Esther Arroyave, Martha Olivia Calle, José Dionisio García, María Gloria Granada, José Edilberto Martínez Restrepo, Rosa María Nohavá, María Esther Orrego, Mercedes Rosa Pérez, Abdón Emilio Posada, Jesús María Restrepo, Danilo Tejada Jaramillo, and Magdalena Zabala. These 12 persons were not mentioned by the Commission or the representatives in their respective briefs submitted during the proceedings before this Court, and no evidence was presented in this regard. Therefore, the Court does not consider these 12 persons to be direct victims of the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, without prejudice to any of these persons being beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court in their capacity as successors of the victims indicated in this judgment or in their capacity as victims of the violation of other articles of the Convention, if applicable. 187. Miriam Lucía Areiza was mentioned in the report issued by the Commission under Article 50 of the Convention as an alleged victim of the violation of Article 21 thereof. The representatives also indicated her name as an alleged victim of the violation of this article in their requests and arguments brief, as one of the successors of Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio. The Court considers that Miriam Lucía Areiza will be a beneficiary of the reparations corresponding to Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio in her capacity as one of his successors. 188. Jesús García was indicated by the representatives as an alleged victim of the violation of Article 21 of the Convention in their requests and arguments brief. In this brief the representatives alleged that Jesús García lost 36 head of cattle. However, there is no evidence in the file before the Court proving the loss of this property. Consequently, since the Court has no evidence in the case file in this regard, it does not consider Jesús García to be a victim of the violation of Article 21 of the Convention. 187 p. 3. Cf. Judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Antioquia Specialized Circuit of April 22, 2003,