23 expenses. Moreover, in these Resolutions it stated that, to carry out these payments in Colombian tender, the State used the exchange rate from the day prior to the payment date, and that the interest on arrears were taken into account at the moment of the deposit, in a joint account, of some of the compensations owed. However, the Court has noted that Resolutions N° 2402 and N° 3114 make reference to other two resolutions (Nº 1468 of June 4, 2008 and Nº 2608 of September 10, 2008), by which payments were ordered, but which were not presented to this Court. 86. In that respect, the representatives sustained that the State has made payments, without indicating whether a payment were pending or incorrect, and the Commission valued the information presented by the State and noted that the representatives confirmed that the State paid. According to the information in the case file (supra Considering Clause 85), the Court positively values that the State has made most of the compensation payments and the reimbursement of legal costs and expenses ordered in the Judgment, and it has adopted adequate measures to refund the amounts that victims were taxed (supra Having Seen clauses 8 and 9 and Considering Clause 81). However, based on various contributions to the case file, the Court cannot deem this aspect to be fully fulfilled. Firstly, the resolutions in the case file (supra Considering Clause 85) do not provide information on whether the settlements and payments of the compensation were made in favor of the following victims: Pablo Antonio Beltran Palomino, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca and Arnulfo Mejía Duarte or their next-of-kin.29 Therefore, the Court deems it necessary for the State to forward Resolutions N° 1468 and N° 2608 (supra Considering Clause 85) or any additional information that confirms the corresponding payment of compensation to the four victims or their next-of-kin. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that a tax known as “four per thousand” was deducted from the compensation deposited in the bank accounts of the victims, and the Court does not have the necessary information to determine whether the amount deducted was refunded to each of the beneficiaries. In this respect, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to remind that in the Judgment it was set forth that "[t]he amounts awarded in this Judgment as compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses shall not be affected, reduced or subject to existing or future taxation.”30 Therefore, it necessary to request the parties to give detailed information on the matter. 87. Thirdly, by means of communications of June 9 and 12, 2008 (supra Having Seen 7), Mr. Orlando Castillo Zapata, brother of deceased victim Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, alleged, inter alia, that the State paid his mother and father incorrect amounts as compensation for lost income. They mentioned that “when deducting the amount awarded in the domestic contentious administrative proceedings, [the State authorities] included the interest paid to them due to the inefficiency of the [S]tate itself and thus, the State discounted double the amount set forth in the resolution ordered by the domestic contentious court." In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its Judgment, it positively valued that Colombia had paid compensation for lost income by means of contentious administrative proceedings and, therefore, it ordered, when paying compensation ordered by this Court in paragraph 248 as loss of income to the 12 29 According to Resolution N° 2402 of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, the beneficiaries of the compensation corresponding to Pablo Beltrán Palomino had not presented a bank certification for the respective payment and “therefore, the settlement and corresponding payment is pending.” No further information has been furnished to the Court in order to confirm whether such calculation and payment were effectively made. 30 Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 311.