by the community to which the victims belonged.52 55. I allow myself to recall that, in its Judgment of 05.25.2001 in the case of the White Van (Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala - reparations), the Court required the onus probandi of the next of kin of the victims specifically in relation to material compensations, understanding as the “next of kin of the victim” an “ample concept”, covering children, parents, and siblings (para. 86). But the criterion with regard to moral damage was, in the correct understanding of the Court, different: "In the case sub judice, the non-pecuniary damage inflicted on the victim is evident, because it is only human nature that any person subjected to the aggression and abuse that she endured (unlawful detention, torture and death) experiences profound physical and mental suffering, which extends to the closest members of the family, particularly those who had a close affective relationship with the victim. The Court considers that no evidence is required to reach this conclusion." (para. 106)53 56. And, in the same Judgment in the case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), the Court added that In the case of the victim’s parents, it is not necessary to demonstrate the non-pecuniary damage, because this is presumed. Similarly, the physical and mental suffering of the victim’s daughter can be presumed. With regard to her siblings, it is necessary to take into account the degree of relationship and affection that existed between them. In the case sub judice, it can be seen that there were close ties between the victim and her brother, Alberto Antonio Paniagua Morales, and her sister-in-law (...). With regard to the victim’s other siblings, it is evident that they form part of the family and even when they do not appear to have participated directly in the measures taken in the situation by the mother and by the sisterin-law, this does not mean that they were indifferent to the suffering caused by the loss of their sister, particularly when the circumstances of death were so singularly traumatic. Therefore, considering that they should be beneficiaries of compensation, the Court must determine the amount according to the principle of fairness and, consequently, establishes compensatory reparation for nonpecuniary damage for the Paniagua Morales siblings." (paras. 108-110)54 57. In the same line of reasoning, in its Judgment of 02.22.2002 in the case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala (reparations), the Court once again duly distinguished the reparations for the next of kin of the victims due to material compensations (regarding which the onus probandi would correspond, naturally, to those next of kin – para. 34), from the reparations to the next of kin – acting based on a right of their own (para. 33) – based on their suffering, for non-pecuniary damage, which does not require evidence: "These sufferings extend equally to the closest members of the family, especially those who had close emotional contact with the victim. The Court deems that evidence is not required to reach this conclusion, even though in the instant case the suffering caused to them has been proven." (para. 63)55 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Fifty Years and Beyond (eds. Y. Danieli, E. Stamatopoulou y C.J. Dias), Amityville/N.Y., Baywood Publ. Co., 1999, pages 345-346. . Cf., v.g., inter alia, C. Martín Beristain y G. Donà, Enfoque Psicosocial de la Ayuda Humanitaria, Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 1997, pages 67-70. 52 53 . Emphasis added. 54 . Emphasis added. 55 . Emphasis added; and cf. paras. 65(b) and (c), 79 and 81.