24 deceased victims, “the State may deduct, from each family, the amount awarded to that family in the domestic contentious administrative proceedings for lost income” and “[i]f the award ordered in the internal proceedings is greater than the award ordered by this Tribunal in the present Judgment, the State may not demand that the victims return the difference.”31 Therefore, although Colombia could make deductions when paying the compensation following the above mentioned criteria, the Court deems it pertinent for the State to refer to what said victims’ next-of-kin indicated in relation to the payment of compensation for lost income. 88. As for the payment of compensation to those beneficiaries who died prior to such payment, in one of the briefs presented by the representatives of nine next-of-kin, they expressed their disagreement with the obligation to process a succession in order to determine the persons entitled to the compensatory amounts that corresponded to the deceased (supra Having Seen 11). The State made no specific reference to this aspect in its reports; however, the Court notes that in Resolutions N° 2402, N° 2444 and N° 3114 issued by the Interior and Justice Ministry, in which ordered some of the payments, it was stated that "in order to comply with paragraph 238 of the [J]udgment, the beneficiaries must present, in order to receive the payment, the public deed or judgment of a competent court indicating the division of the compensation among the according to the domestic inheritance law.” Moreover, Resolution N° 3114 specifically stipulates that the successors of Gilberto Morales Tellez, Rosinda Muñoz de Hernández, Gabriel Vesga Zanabria, Maria Antonia Cepeda de Morales, Elena Garzón widow of Salgado, Blanca Herrera Suárez and Gabriel Hernández Muñoz “ha[d] not presented the public deed or the judgment of a competent court indicating the division of the compensation ordered by the Court […], therefore, the State shall deposit the amount in Colombian pesos in the joint account, according to the terms of paragraph 309 of the [J]udgment.” As a result, in accordance with this resolution, the State deposited, in a joint account, the amounts corresponding to three of the nine next-of-kin who signed said brief presented by the representatives. Regarding three others, next-of-kin of deceased victim Luis Orlando Hernandez Muñoz, the Court notes that in Resolution N° 2444, it ordered the payment of the corresponding compensation. As to the claim made in such brief by Mrs. Luz Nelly Carvajal Londoño, widow of deceased victim Yul German Monroy Ramírez, and Mariela Rosas Lozano and Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, widow and son of deceased victim Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, the State must still prove to this Court that the compensatory amounts corresponding to Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez and Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca have been paid or awarded32 (supra Considering 87). 89. In this regard, the Court manifested in the Judgment that for deceased persons who were awarded compensation, the payment “shall be made to their heirs pursuant to applicable domestic law.”33 Furthermore, it indicated that “[i]f the beneficiaries, for reasons attributable to them, were unable to collect the payments within the specified time period […] the State shall pay the amounts in an account or as a deposit certificate 31 Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 250. According to Resolution N° 2402 of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, the beneficiaries of the compensation corresponding to Yul Germán Monroy Ramirez had not presented a bank certification for the respective payment and “therefore, the calculation 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. Likewise, according to Resolution N° 2402, the beneficiaries of the compensation corresponding to Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca “h[ad] not presented the bank certification for the corresponding payment" and no further information has been furnished confirming whether such calculation and payment were made. 32 33 Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 238 and 308.