25 with a sound Colombian financial institution, in United States Dollars, in the most favorable financial terms possible under legislation and banking practice.”34 Therefore, those persons who consider themselves to be heirs of compensation awarded to deceased beneficiaries must comply with the proceedings and requirements stipulated by the applicable domestic law so as to determine that they are the successors of the deceased person. Moreover, the State has the obligation deposit the compensation so that the successors may then claim such amounts and “[i]f the compensation is unclaimed after ten years, the amounts plus interest accrued shall be returned to the State.”35 The Court has verified that, according to the provisions of said resolutions of the Interior and Justice Ministry, the State had complied with the obligation to deposit the compensation for the successors of the persons “who had not presented a public deed or judgment of a competent court indicating the division of the compensation ordered by the Court.” 90. Moreover, by means of a communication of August 5, 2010, Mrs. Luz Marina Poveda León, widow of deceased victim Cesar Augusto Morales Cepeda, complained that the State failed to pay her the amount of USD 2,000 (two thousand United States dollars) pertaining to the family of said deceased victim as expenses (supra Having Seen 16). In that respect, the Court notes that in Resolution N° 3114 issued by the Interior and Justice Ministry on October 28, 2008, it was ruled that an equivalent amount in Colombian pesos be deposited “in a joint account according to Paragraph 309 of the Judgment" because the victim’s next-of-kin “had not presented to [said] Ministry […] a written communication designating a representative to receive the compensation for legal costs and expenses.” Moreover, the Court recalls that, in Paragraph 305 of the Judgment, the Court ordered that Colombia pay the amount of USD 2,000.00 (two thousand United States dollars or its equivalent in Colombian tender) to each deceased victim's family and to surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón, and in order to collect the amounts “[t]he family units of the deceased victims should designate a person to receive the abovementioned amounts.” In addition, in the Interpreting Judgment (supra Having Seen 2), the Tribunal considered that if the family group does not appoint a person to receive the payment for expenses or if the family group does not come to an agreement on the matter, “it is admissible to proceed in accordance with the Judgment on the form to comply with the compensation.”36 Hence, it falls upon the family group of deceased victim Cesar Augusto Morales Cepeda to communicate to State authorities the person appointed to receive the amount deposited by the State in said joint account as reimbursement of expenses. 91. By means of communication of June 9 and 12, 2008, Mr. Orlando Castillo Zapata, brother of deceased victim Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, stated, inter alia, that on June 7, 2008, the State paid him and his brothers the compensation agreed upon in the partial agreement on reparations, but that the amount paid was lower than the amount agreed upon. Neither the State nor the representatives referred to this allegation put forward by Mr. Castillo Zapata. However, the Court has verified that in Resolution N° 2402 issued by the Interior and Justice Ministry on August 25, 2008, it was decided to “repay the compensation for non-pecuniary damage” to Mr. Orlando Alonso Castillo Zapata and the other brothers of deceased victim Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata. After the communication of June 2008 and the issuance of said resolution by the Interior and 34 35 Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 309. Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 309. See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 309; Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C N°. 175, para. 33. 36