Arguments of the representatives and observations of the State 50. The representatives asked the Court to clarify whether the 18 victims who were not recognized as injured party,25 referred to in paragraph 295 of the Judgment, and who, although their mandate was accredited by the representatives, were not included in the Commission’s Merits Report, were in the same situation as the next of kin of Luis Enrique Ropero Parada and, consequently, whether they can consider themselves included in the reparation mechanism established in paragraph 337 or whether they can have recourse to the mechanism of Law 288 of 1996. 51. The Commission did not present observations on this point. 52. The State referred to the situation of these persons together with the arguments relating to the situation of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero (supra para. 46). Regarding the question on the possibility that the group analyzed may have recourse to the action for direct reparation established under domestic law, the State reiterated its previous observations and added that, even though the time frame had expired, “[w]hen the Court established that the Judgment delivered in this case ‘does not preclude any actions that [might be filed] at the domestic level’ by those who were not recognized as injured party, it indicated that its decision did not prevent those who were part of this group having recourse to the appropriate domestic mechanisms,” but the Inter-American Court did not contemplate exceptions with regard to the exhaustion of the proceedings, compliance with the probative requirements, and observance of the time frames established by law and the Colombian Constitution. It again indicated that the inclusion of these persons in this procedural instance “would entail modification of the original Judgment.” Considerations of the Court 53. Regarding the 18 persons indicated by the representatives, paragraph 294 of the Judgment establishes the following: “[…] the Court has stated that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission, and observes that 24 individuals named by the representatives as next of kin of the victims, are not included in the Merits Report issued by the Commission in this case. Nevertheless, of these 24 individuals, six family members of two of the deceased victims received reparation under the contentious-administrative jurisdiction; thus it can be understood that the State acknowledged them as victims. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to consider as victims or as injured party 18 of the persons presented as next of kin of victims by the representatives, without prejudice to the reparations that may correspond to them at the domestic level.”26 54. It is clear that paragraph 337 applies solely to those persons who were declared victims or injured party in the Judgment. Consequently, it is clear that the 18 persons indicated by the representatives cannot be considered in the reparation mechanism established in paragraph 337 of the Judgment, “notwithstanding the reparations that may correspond to them at the domestic level,” as established in paragraph 295 of the Judgment. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to paragraph 338, the decisions made in the Judgment do not preclude these persons from filing “any [pertinent] actions […] at the 25 The representatives referred to: Luis Felipe Durán Mora, Luz Dary Tellez Durán, Yamile Tellez Durán, Wilmer Tellez Durán, Emilse Hernández Durán, Milena Durán, Yeimi Sulai Hernández Mora, Mary Molina Panqueva, Moisés Molina Panqueva, Genny Carolina Molina Restrepo, Wilson García Reatiga, Wilson Enrique García Guevara, María Antonia Rojas, Elizabeth Daza Rojas, José Antonio Daza Rojas, Wilson Daza Rojas, Javier Daza Rojas and Frady Alexi Leal. 26 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 294. 14