27 make this determination, in its decisions, the Court takes into consideration the specific situation of the families involved in the cases; and also the reality of the concept of family on this continent; namely, that “the expression next of kin means the immediate ascending and descendant next of kin [...] in a direct line, siblings, spouses or permanent companions, or those determined by the Court in each Accordingly, it decides who shall receive compensation owing to case[.]”59 succession, or in their own right. In this respect, the next of kin of a deceased victim may, in turn, suffer pecuniary damage and it is for the Inter-American Court to establish the compensation that they may claim in their own right, which does not necessarily coincide with the criteria of domestic succession laws. 58. Based on the foregoing, the Court made its considerations and differentiations with regard to the beneficiaries in chapter XIV of the judgment of June 7, 200360, and indicated that the violations of the rights established in the American Convention were committed: […] to the detriment of […] Juan Humberto Sánchez, María Dominga Sánchez (mother); Juan José Vijil Hernández (stepfather); Reina Isabel Sánchez (sister), María Milagro Sánchez (sister), Rosa Delia Sánchez (sister), Domitila Vijil Sánchez (sister); María Florinda Vijil Sánchez (sister); Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez (brother); Julio Sánchez (brother); Celio Vijil Sánchez (brother); Donatila Argueta Sánchez (companion); Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta (daughter); Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira (companion) and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta (daughter), all of them – as victims – must be included in this category and are entitled to the reparations ordered by the Court, both regarding pecuniary damage, when appropriate, and regarding non-pecuniary damage. With respect to Juan Humberto Sánchez, it will also be necessary to establish which of the reparations ordered in his favor can be transmitted through inheritance to his next of kin, and to which of them. 59. As regards the succession rights relating to the compensation decided in favor of Juan Humberto Sánchez, in order to decide this, the Court has had recourse to the rules of logic and experience, as has been its consistent practice. As was cited and indicated in paragraph 164 of the judgment of June 7, 2003, the criteria on succession used by the Court has evolved in its recent judgment in El Caracazo v. Venezuela, when specific percentages of the compensation were granted by succession to the children, spouse or companion, parents or those who had had an affective relationship of a similar nature, either as stepfather, aunts, uncles or grandparents. Should none of these exist, the compensation will be delivered in equal percentages to the parents and siblings of the victim. Finally, “should there be no next of kin in any of the categories defined above, the amounts that would have corresponded to the next of kin in these categories, would increase the part corresponding to the others proportionally.”61 This development has its precedents in the following cases: for example, in El Amparo v. Venezuela, when determining the beneficiaries, it was established that one of the victims had not only a wife but also a companion, so that part of the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary 59 Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court cited in Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 78; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 156; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 54 and 55; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 72 and 73; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 57; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 34; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 68; the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, para. 86; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 92; and Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 49, para. 52. 60 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 155 and 156. 61 El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 91.