100 In view of the above, it is the opinion of the Court that Jennifer Harbury is a victim of the violations of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention, as declared in the judgment on the merits, and also that she must be considered as a beneficiary of the reparation that would have been due to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, as his successor. 33. Likewise, claims can be made regarding the damage caused by the death of a victim to his next of kin or to third parties, based on a right of their own.38 However, the Court has pointed out that there must be certain circumstances, such as that of a relationship of effective and regular dependence having existed between the claimant and the victim, so that it can be reasonably assumed that the benefits received by the former would have continued if the victim had not died; and that the claimant had an economic need that was covered on a regular basis by the assistance provided by the victim.39 34. As regards these claimants, the onus probandi rests on the next of kin of the victim,40 the term “next of kin” being understood in accordance with Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure41 of the Court, adopted in its November 24, 2000 Order, that entered into force on July 1, 2001, as a broad concept that covers all persons having close kinship, including children, parents, and siblings, who may be considered as next of kin and have the right to receive compensation, insofar as they fulfill the requirements set forth in case law by this Court.42 For purposes of the sub judice case, this type of reparations will be analyzed in the respective section under the circumstances of each one of the victims and of the body of evidence supplied to this Court by the next of kin. 35. As regards José León Bámaca Hernández, Jennifer Harbury, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, it must be highlighted that the death of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez caused them non-pecuniary damage.43 36. In this regard, during the public hearing (supra 9), the representatives of the victims and the Inter-American Commission requested that the Court include Alberta Velásquez, a sister of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez on his mother’s side, as a beneficiary of possible reparations granted to the next of kin in the instant case, taking into account the close relationship of Mrs. Velásquez with Efraín Bámaca Velásquez 38 See Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 68; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 85; and Castillo Páez Case, Reparations, supra note 6, para. 59. 39 See Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 68; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 85; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). September 10, 1993 Judgment. C Series No. 15, para. 67 and 68. 40 See Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 68; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 86; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 40, para. 71. 41 Pursuant to Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the term “next of kin” means “the immediate family, that is, the direct ascendants and descendants, siblings, spouses or permanent companions, or those determined by the Court, if applicable”. 42 See Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra note 6, para. 92, and in this same regard, Villagrán Morales et al. Case. Reparations, supra note 5, para. 68; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 86. 43 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 37; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 66 and 68; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 108 and 110.