50 understood as a broad concept that embraces all the persons who are closely related, including parents, children and siblings, who may have the right to compensation, provided they satisfy the requirements established by the case law of this Court.108 149. There is no dispute with regard to the status as beneficiaries of Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia, the victim’s son, and of Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos and María Pilar García de Urrutia, the victim’s parents. The son and parents of Maritza Urrutia must be considered beneficiaries according to the consistent case law of this Court, which presumes that the closest members of the family, particularly those who have been in close affective contact with the victim,109 suffer a damage that must be repaired. With regard to Edmundo and Carolina Lissette, both Urrutia García, the victim’s siblings, they were not indifferent to their sister’s suffering110 and, therefore, should also be the beneficiaries of a reparation. 150. In the corresponding section, the Court will examine entitlement to the right to receive reparations, according to the evidence submitted by the parties submitted. XVI REPARATIONS FOR PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE 151. In accordance with the probative elements submitted at the different stages of the proceeding and in light of the criteria that the Court has established, the Court will now examine the claims submitted by the parties at this stage of the proceeding, to determine measures relating to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and other forms of reparation. A) PECUNIARY DAMAGE Arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 152. With regard to pecuniary damage, the Commission indicated the following: a) The victim traveled to Mexico with the financial support of Amnesty International and remained in this country for “five” years. The victim’s parents made four trips a year from Guatemala. Given the difficulties to document the expenses incurred, the Commission requested the Court to establish, in fairness, the amount of the compensation corresponding to indirect damages, in addition to the 16.000,00 quetzales that the victim’s family had to pay for international telephone calls and the approximately 20 trips they made to visit her in Mexico, without prejudice to the claims presented by the representatives of the victim at the procedural opportunity; and 108 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 78; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 156; and Las Palmeras case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 54 and 55. 109 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 98; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 175; and Las Palmeras case. Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 54 and 55. 110 Cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 105, para. 37; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 105, para. 68; and the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 105, para. 110.