7 Court. Also, the Court has deemed proven that there were other victims, specifically Gustavo Caicedo Rodríguez, Diego Armando Martínez Contreras, Hugo Fernando Martínez Contreras, Jaime Riaño Colorado, Omar Patiño Vaca, Eliécer Martínez Vaca, Enrique Pinzón López, Jorge Pinzón López, Luis Eduardo Pinzón López, José Alberto Pinzón López, Edwin Morales, Uriel Garzón, Ana Beiba Ramírez and Manuel Arévalo, who have been individually identified and whom the State does not include in its statement (supra paras. 96.51 and 96.52 and infra para. 254). Likewise, the State’s intention to limit the victims of the instant case to the persons identified “in the final criminal and disciplinary proceedings” and to “those who prove under domestic law that they are victims” is not acceptable. In accordance with the basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State according to which the States must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda), the State cannot validly resort to domestic reasons to avoid answering for the international responsibility already acknowledged before this Court. 12. That the Court has processed the instant case in all its stages, and within such framework, the parties had different opportunities to furnish and submit arguments, information and evidence, based on which the Tribunal has delivered the Judgment on the merits and reparations. The State based said request on the documentation tendered between the years 1999 and 2002, which was already in the State’s possession before the case was brought before the Court, before the answer to the petition and before the moment the State forwarded to the Tribunal said evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case during the merits stage. In the Judgment, the Tribunal appreciated the proven willingness of the State to cooperate by providing the names of those persons, which entailed admitting that they are victims of the massacre, and based on this the Court set the appropriate compensations.10 The State cannot validly allege, in this procedural stage, where compliance with the Judgment is being monitored, that there are no grounds for the reparations ordered in favor of the two persons mentioned inasmuch as, despite the fact that the State held information that it now presents, it mentioned, in the merits stage before this Court, that Messrs. Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca were fully identified victims of the facts of Mapiripán. 13. That the Tribunal notes that, at present, there are doubts about the way in which these persons died or disappeared, according to subsequent conclusions of the Attorney General’s Office. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that the characteristics of the massacre and the inefficacy of the internal investigations, determined in the Judgment itself, precisely led to the lack of full identification of the victims. Based on the foregoing, this Tribunal dismisses the request made by the State, which shall comply with the reparations ordered in favor of the next-of-kin of Messrs. Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca. Even in the event that it is possible to effectively and irrefutably prove that a person declared victim in a judgment is not a victim, it falls upon the State to effectively pay the compensatory amounts ordered in his favor or in favor of his next-of-kin, considering that the act of acknowledgment of international responsibility of the State gave rise to an adequate expectation of the beneficiaries to receive reparations. * * 10 * Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” V. Colombia, supra nota 8, para. 254.