46 151. The Commission contended that it does not consider that “the inability of the petitioners to locate the alleged victim in Colombia […] is a problem that cannot be overcome [since] with the constant efforts of the Colombian Church, there is a very high possibility that the whereabouts of [Mr.] Acosta [Calderón] will eventually be known.” ARGUMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES 152. The representatives claimed that: a) “the Court shall solve a matter that has not been presented in previous cases and that will imply a jurisprudential development in this subject. Said matter presents itself because of the impossibility, up to now, to locate the alleged victim, Mr. […] Acosta Calderón, since after having fulfilled his sentence he abandoned the country and the Ecumenical Commission of Human Rights […] lost all contact with the alleged victim. Even though it is considered that this is not an obstacle for the determination of the reparations[,] it does present some considerations regarding the execution and fulfillment of the patrimonial obligations;” and b) the State must indemnify “Mr. Acosta Calderón’s next of kin, that is[,] his partner, his children, and his mother”. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 153. This case presents the difficulty that neither the Commission nor the representatives know the whereabouts of the alleged victim. The Commission and the representatives state that after his release, Mr. Acosta Calderón supposedly returned to his home country of Colombia. Despite the efforts of Colombia’s religious groups, Mr. Acosta Calderón has not been located. In this regard, the Commission and the representatives consider that this fact is not an obstacle for the determination of the corresponding reparations. Both parties suggested that all financial reparation corresponding to Mr. Acosta Calderón be kept in a fiduciary account or a trust under his name until he is located. 154. As previously mentioned, (supra para. 145), Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes that after declaring a violation of the Convention, the Court will order the payment of a fair indemnity to the injured party. The inability to locate the victim does not affect his right to the corresponding reparation. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that Mr. Acosta Calderón is the beneficiary of the reparations in this case. B) PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE Arguments of the Commission 155. The Commission stated that: a) “all financial reparation that corresponds [to Mr. Acosta Calderón] shall be kept in a fiduciary account to his name, until he is located;” b) Mr. Acosta Calderón “is entitled to receive – and the State has the obligation to grant him – a compensation that will reflect the fundamental and