may be reached. 30. As much can be said about the engraving of the names on a plaza or monument created for that purpose. When the Commission and the common intervener requested a measure of this nature, the State mentioned that “a monument (called the Eye that Cries) has already been erected in a public place of the capital in favor of all the victims of the conflict;” it is “a public place in the capital of the Republic that is the object of continuous acts of commemoration.” The Court took note of the express suggestion. Then clarifications were presented regarding the availability of that place. Considering these circumstances, the judgment of interpretation mentions the possibility that the names be included in a monument or in the name of a plaza within the territorial circumscription where “The Eye that Cries” is located. This reference refers to the site of the engraving of the names, not the measure itself. 31. In what refers to the manner in which payment of compensations must be made, the Court has followed the criterion adopted in its constant jurisprudence when amounts of money must be delivered to adults. It cannot express what it anticipates will happen, which would be speculations or conjectures, regarding the destination the individual beneficiaries of the compensation may give the amounts received. Of course these resources, as any others, must have a legal destination. The Inter-American Court lacks the authority and the instruments to supervise this destination and prevent the application of goods to illegal objectives. The supervising duties regarding the legitimacy of economic movements, in general, are within the realm of the State’s powers and possibilities, pursuant to its constitutional authorities and observing the corresponding guarantees. 32. With regard to the existence of debts of the beneficiaries of the compensations with regard to third parties, whether they are people of public or private law, the decision of the Court does not exclude nor could it exclude the possibility, subject to domestic law, that creditors exercise the actions acknowledged to them by law, in the terms of the due process of law. The judgment does not deprive them of this right. What the Court seeks to avoid, as can be concluded from its jurisprudence –and of the specific ruling in the present case--, is the evasion of compliance of a compensatory decision through tax burdens that deprive the beneficiary of the compensation to which he is entitled. 33. I conclude my opinion with a comment on the request for a public hearing in these proceedings, which the majority of the members of the Court –among them myself—did not endorse. In this sense, it is necessary to take into account the grounds that justify the celebration of a public hearing for the effects of the interpretation of a judgment, not only in what refers to the present case, but in general terms, as a reference for the matter that is now analyzed. 34. The Court receives in public hearing, whenever necessary, the evidence provided by the parties to clarify a controversy and listens to the same directly. This is not the only way to know of the aspects of the case and gather elements for its adjudication. An important part of the jurisdictional proceedings is carried out in writing. Only the second part is developed with immediacy, publicity, and orally, always without detriment of the tribunal’s possibility to receive written petitions, evidentiary elements, and arguments. 35. Throughout the previous years, the tribunal has considerably increased the number of matters tended to and solved, and of hearings during its regular sessions. To these they have added those held in extraordinary sessions, outside the Court’s headquarters, system that became rooted in those same years. Besides, the tribunal has established a new practice consisting in special hearings to know of