26 occasions, including in the instant case,55 part of the transcendental function of an international court is to carry out a dynamic interpretation of the treaties within its competence. As this Court indicated in Advisory Opinion No. 16, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law: This guidance is particularly relevant in the case of international human rights law, which has made great headway thanks to an evolutive interpretation of international instruments of protection. That evolutive interpretation is consistent with the general rules of treaty interpretation established in the 1969 Vienna Convention. [...] this Court, in the Advisory Opinion on the Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1989),56 [...]among others, ha[s] held that human rights treaties are living instruments whose interpretation must consider the changes over time and present-day conditions.57 57. With regard to determining the persons who have the right to compensation, it is worth emphasizing that the Court may grant these amounts to individuals, both in their own right by considering them victims of human rights violations, and as next-of kin/successors of a victim of the violations that have been established.58 To 105, 110, 111, 119, 126, 127, 138, 145, 187, 193 and 217; Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 20, paras. 183, 184 and 189; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 20, paras. 100 and 101; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 20, paras. 206, 207, 208 and 209; the Constitutional Court case, supra note 15, paras. 125 and 126; Blake case, Reparations, supra note 46, paras. 49, 58 and 70; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 25, paras. 60 c), 67, 92 and 93; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 75, 76, 77, 84, 90 and 112; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 139, 141, 142 and 143; Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 49, paras. 63, 64 and 82; Caballero Delgado and Santana case, Reparations, supra note 46, paras. 50 and 51; Genie Lacayo case, supra note 15, para. 95; Neira Alegría et al. case, Reparations, supra note 46, paras. 42, 50, 56 and 61; El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 46, para. 37; Aloeboetoe et al. case, Reparations, supra note 18, paras. 86 and 87; Godínez Cruz case. Compensatory damages, supra note 46, para. 25; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, Compensatory damages, supra note 46, para. 27. 55 56 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 163, 166, 168, 172, 177, 194 and 195. Regarding the American Declaration, the Court has stated that: “by means of an authoritative interpretation, the member states of the Organization have signaled their agreement that the Declaration contains and defines the fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter. Thus the Charter of the Organization cannot be interpreted and applied as far as human rights are concerned without relating its norms, consistent with the practice of the organs of the OAS, to the corresponding provisions of the Declaration.” (Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10; para. 43). Thus, the Court has recognized that the Declaration is a source of international obligations for the States of our region, which can also be interpreted in the framework of the development of “American law” in this area. 57 The right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114; and similarly, Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 20, para. 99; and Blake case. Interpretation of the judgment on Reparations (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of October 1, 1999. Series C No. 57, para. 21. 58 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 78; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 155; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 54; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 30; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 36; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 65; the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, para. 82; Blake case, Reparations, supra note 46, para. 38; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 54; and Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 89.