49 144. In relation to the violation of rights, such as the right to personal freedom and humane treatment, judicial guarantees and judicial protection, restitutio in integrum is not possible and, bearing in mind the nature of the right involved, the reparation is made, inter alia, pursuant to the practice of international case law, by fair pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. To this should be added the positive measures that the State must adopt to ensure that there is no repetition of the harmful facts, such as those of this case.106 XV BENEFICIARIES Arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 145. The Commission indicated that, owing to the nature of this case, the beneficiaries of the possible reparations that the Court may order as a result of the human rights violations perpetrated by the State are: Maritza Urrutia, victim; Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia, the victim’s son; Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos and María Pilar García de Urrutia, the victim’s parents; and Edmundo and Carolina Lissette, both Urrutia García, the victim’s siblings. Arguments of the representatives of the victim 146. The representatives endorsed the indications of the Commission as regards the beneficiaries of the reparations. However, in the brief with final arguments, they included as beneficiaries: María Gabriela Escobar Urrutia and Rene Estuardo Escobar Urrutia, niece and nephew of Maritza Urrutia, the children of her sister, Carolina Urrutia. Arguments of the State 147. The State did not submit any specific argument with regard to the beneficiaries. Considerations of the Court 148. The Court will now proceed to determine who should be considered an “injured party” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Since the violations of the Convention were committed against Maritza Urrutia, she must be considered to be included in this category and be owed the reparations established by the Court. Moreover, since the victim’s immediate next of kin also suffered owing to the violation of her rights, the provisions of Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure should be underscored,107 to the effect that “the next of kin” of the victim should be 106 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 73; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 150; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations, supra note 97, para. 62. 107 According to Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the term “next of kin” refers to the “immediate family, that is, the direct ascendants and descendants, siblings, spouses or permanent companions, or those determined by the Court, if applicable.”