6 15. Regarding the discrepancies about the compensation received by the beneficiary Rosa María Posada George, the State indicated that, in a note of June 9, 2008, it had informed the beneficiary of the amounts it had paid for the death of Marco Aurelio Aleiza. For their part, the representatives indicated that Mrs. Posada is illiterate and that, “owing to aversion and problems with the wife and children of Aurelio Aleiza – father of her children – she had signed with her fingerprint several petitions sent to the Court by an unknown person stating that the lawyer who processed the domestic proceedings had not paid her the sum that corresponded to her.” The representatives indicated that they had charged Mrs. Posada 30% of the fees, in keeping with the prior oral agreement, which, according to the representatives, the beneficiary was trying to disregard. 16. Regarding Mercedes Barrera, whose compensation was established in Ministry of Defense Resolution 1946 of May 19, 2008, the State advised that the amount was deposited in a bank account so that her heirs could request it, a procedure that has not been carried out to date. During the private hearing, the representatives indicated that the heirs of Mercedes Barrera had not been able to access the amount deposited in their favor because the Treasury Department of the Ministry of Defense would not permit this without the corresponding succession procedures. In their opinion it was impossible to comply with because, owing to the way in which the events occurred, there is no death certificate for the victim, or other documents required for this procedure. During the private hearing, the representatives proposed that the State should assume the obligation to issue a death certificate for Mercedes Barrera in order to enable compliance with the requirement for the succession procedures. The State did not refer to this proposal. 17. In relation to the deposit of the compensation established in favor of minors, the State advised that: (a) it had handed over to their respective representatives the revenue generated in favor of Juan Carlos Calle Fernández, Deysi Tatiana Calle Fernández, Johan Daniel Calle Fernández, Cristian de Jesús Calle Fernández and Juan Felipe Zuleta Cossio; (b) regarding Nelson Adrián Palacio Jaramillo, Francisco Daniel Córdoba, Eliana Julliet Gutiérrez Jiménez and Juliana Andrea Gutiérrez Jiménez, at this date, they have the capital deposited in their favor and the interest earned, and (c) it had handed over the amounts decided in favor of William Alejandro Villa Henao, Omar Alveiro Calle Fenández, Carlos Adrian Zuleta Cossio and Julio Eliver Pérez Areiza, since they had all attained their majority. The representatives made no specific reference to the information provided by the State. 18. Furthermore, the State, the representatives and the Commission made no reference to the contents of the Order of December 22, 2010 (supra tenth having seen paragraph), in relation to the State’s request to proceed immediately, as agreed, to complete the acquisition of the house in the name of the minors Deisy Tatiana, Johan Daniel and Cristian de Jesús Calle Fernández. Consequently, the Court understands that an agreement had been reached in this regard and that this aspect has been fulfilled. 19. The Court observes that the State has made the payments owed. Nevertheless, the Court takes note of the pending matter concerning the issue of inheritance so that Mercedes Barrera’s heirs can access the amount deposited, and therefore asks the State and the representatives to present information in this regard. In these terms, the State has complied with the provisions of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth operative paragraphs of the judgment, with the said exception, regarding which the Court requires prompt information. The Court asks that the State, in its reports on this