“For purposes of the present document, ‘victims’ are persons who individually or collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international human rights law, or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Where appropriate, and in accordance with domestic law, the term ‘victim’ also includes the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization”.’® 48. Regarding the content of the notion of closest international jurisprudence is not rigorously uniform. American Court of Human relatives of the direct victim, Whereas, for instance, the Inter- Rights has in some cases considered closest relatives as fathers, mothers, children and spouses'®, it has in most cases also included brothers and sisters of the direct victim.” 1 In the same vein; Committee on Human Rights: Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 Other Mauritian Women v. Mauritius, Decision of 9 April 1981, Communication 035/1978, para. 9.2: "A person can only claim to be a victim in the sense of article 1 of the Optional Protocol if he or she is actually affected. It is a matter of degree how concretely this requirement should be taken"; ECHR: Aslakhanova v, Russia, Judgment of 18 December 2012, para. 133: "...the applicants, who are close relatives of the disappeared men, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the distress and anguish which they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with." 18 See for example: |ACHR: Bulacio v. Argentina (Merits, Reparation and Costs), Judgment of 18 September 2003, para. 85; IACHR: Chitay Nech and Others v. Guatemala, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgement of 25 May 2010, para 220: “ ...this Tribunal has found that it can declare a violation of the right to physical and moral integrity of the direct next of kin of victims of certain violations of human rights such as forced disappearance, by applying a presumption juris fantum regarding mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and permanent domestic partners (hereinafter, ‘direct next of kin’), so long as this corresponds to the particular circumstances of the case. Regarding the said direct next of kin, it corresponds to the State to rebut the said presumption”, IACHR: Gonzalez Medina and Others v. Dominican Republic, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 27 February 2012, para. 270. ‘7 See for example: IACHR: Loayza Tomayo v. Peru, (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 27 November 1998, para. 92; IACHR: Myrna Mack v. Guatemaia, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgement of 25 November 2003, para. 243; IACHR: /tuango Massacres v. Colombia, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 1 July 2006, para. 264: "In keeping with its case law ... the Court considers that the adequately-identified immediate next of kin are the direct descendants and ascendants of the alleged victim, namely: mother, father, children, and also siblings, and spouse or permanent 16 « Ode ge