67 spouse or companion,144 parents and siblings,145 for which reason it is not necessary to prove this.146 198. The Court has pointed out, and reiterates here, that the victims’ right to compensation for injuries up to the time of their death is transmitted by succession to their heirs. In this regard, the Court has stated that [i]t is a norm common to most legal systems that a person’s successors are his or her children. It is also generally accepted that the spouse has a share in the assets acquired during a marriage; some legal systems also grant the spouse inheritance rights along with the children. If there is no spouse or children, private common law recognizes the ascendants as heirs. It is the Court’s opinion that these rules, generally accepted by the community of nations, should be applied in the instant case, in order to determine the victims’ successors for purposes of compensation.147 199. In the case of Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri, he had neither spouse nor companion nor children, for which reason his compensation must be given, in equal parts, to his parents, Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe and Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, as the successors of Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri. 200. In the case of Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, the Court has deemed it proven (supra para. 67.u) that he procreated a daughter, Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. In this regard, his compensation must be divided between his parents, Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe and Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, and his daughter, Nora Emely Gómez Peralta, as follows: a) thirty percent (30%) of the compensation will be divided in equal parts between the parents of the victim; and b) seventy percent (70%) of the compensation must be given to his daughter. 144 See Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 116, paras. 125, 173 and 174; and Case of Cesti Hurtado. Reparations, supra note 116, paras. 40 and 54. 145 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 169.c); Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, paras. 264.c) and f); Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 98; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 175; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 88.b); Case of Cantoral Benavides. Reparations, supra note 108, paras. 37 and 61 a) and d); Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 116, paras. 66 and 68; and Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 116, paras. 108, 110, 125, 126, 143, 144 and 158. 146 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, paras. 169 and 169.b); Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 264; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 98; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 175; Case of the Caracazo. Reparations, supra note 17, para. 50.e); Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 88.b); Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 65.b); Case of Cantoral Benavides. Reparations, supra note 108, paras. 37 and 61.a) and d); Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 116, para. 66; and Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 116, paras. 108, 125, 143 and 158. 147 Case of Aloeboetoe et al.. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 62; likewise, see Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 85; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 164; Case of the Caracazo. Reparations, supra note 17, para. 91; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 57; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 32; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 116, para. 67.