81 Argueta (companion). Pursuant to the pleadings of the representatives of the victim, these persons must be deemed beneficiaries based on the following considerations: a) with the exception of Juan Humberto Sánchez, these persons are entitled to reparations in two different ways: first, as beneficiaries or successors of the reparations that the State must pay as a consequence of the violations of the human rights of Juan Humberto Sánchez; and second, as victims per se; b) previously, the Court has deemed proven that violation of human rights of the victim causes non-pecuniary damage to the parents and siblings, for which reason the eight siblings and half-siblings of Juan Humberto Sánchez are entitled to the right to redress; c) even though Juan José Vijil Hernández was not the biological father of Juan Humberto Sánchez, since he married the latter’s mother the two of them developed a very close emotional relationship, to the point that Mr. Vijil Hernández accompanied the victim during his detention by agents of the State; and d) Juan Humberto Sánchez was involved in two emotional relationships from which he had offspring: he lived with Donatila Argueta Sánchez, with whom he had a daughter by name Breidy Maybeli Sánchez, and he had another daughter with Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, whose name is Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta. Pleadings of the Commission 153. The Inter-American Commission argued that the following persons should be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court: María Dominga Sánchez, the mother of the victim; Juan José Vijil Hernández, the stepfather of the victim, and Domitila Vijil Sánchez Hernández, sister of the victim. The Commission also pointed out that Juan Humberto Sánchez “had offspring with a Salvadoran woman” and they should also be considered beneficiaries of the reparations. The Commission based its statements on the following arguments: a) it can be assumed that violation of the right to life causes direct and moral harm to the successors of the right of the deceased and it is for the counterpart to prove that said harm did not occur; b) given the nature of the violations committed by the State, it is evident that those persons who had close emotional ties to Juan Humberto Sánchez were deeply affected; c) both the mother and the father of the victim had suffered threats and harassment by agents of the Honduran State with the aim of intimidating them; and d) in this case, a “humble family” has fruitlessly sought, for over eight years, that justice be served and has challenged impunity in Honduras.