26 Therefore, the Court considers that the State shall pay the interests corresponding to the bank interest on delayed payments in Colombia and for the period of time that went by between February 27, 2007 –expiration date of the term stated in the Judgment in which the payment should have been made- and the date on which the State actually made the payment or informed each of the beneficiaries or, in its case, their representatives, according to each individual case, that the payments were at their full disposal to be withdrawn or made effective. c) Exchange rate used 68. That regarding the exchange rate for dollars to Colombian pesos used for the effects of the payments made, the State indicated it complied with that stated in paragraph 288 of the Judgment, that is, it used as base the Representative Market Rate (TRM) of the dollar of the day prior to December 27, 2007, date on which the deposit was made at the Bank. Additionally, it stated that the Judgment cannot be settled with the dollar’s value in February 2007, since the exchange rate used is that of the day prior to payment, according to said Judgment. 69. That the representatives stated, with regard to the exchange rate used, that the amounts of money would have had to be deposited in United States dollars and in the most favorable financial conditions for the beneficiaries. They state that for this it would have had to use the value of the dollar on the day prior to the date on which the payment became demandable and not the date on which the State deposited the money at the bank. They considered that the moment of payment is the one in which the people in fact have the possibility to access the compensation and stated that the consignment of the amount of money made by the State was not communicated to them or the beneficiaries directly or their representatives, thus they did not have the possibilities to access said payment until Order No. 825 was communicated to them, at the meeting of May 8, 2008. Therefore, the representatives requested that they be paid the value of the totality of the compensations and interests on delayed payments pursuant with the value of the dollar at the time in which the corresponding payment became demandable, that is, on February 27, 2007. 70. That the Commission considered it incorrect that the State froze the value of the dollar taking into account the quote in force the day prior to said deposit. 71. That regarding the currency used to make the payments, in the cases in which the payment of pecuniary compensations has been ordered, the Tribunal “has established that the State may comply with its obligations through the payment in dollars of the United States of America or in an equal amount in the national currency, which applies based on the exchange rate between both currencies in force in the international market, obeying only the need to preserve the value of the amounts set in the concept of reparation, with regard to the period of time the processing of the case took at a national and international level, as well as the amount of time that will go by until the payment offered is in fact made.”14 In the terms of the Judgment, the State may make the payments in either of the two currencies mentioned, for which in this sense the Tribunal does not consider that the State failed to comply with that ordered. 14 Cf. Case of Perozo et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 405; and Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 396.