27 72. That regarding the exchange rate of the dollar that shall be taken into consideration for the payment of the compensations ordered, this Tribunal observes that paragraph 290 of the Judgment states that it was the one in force in the plaza of New York, United States of America, the day before the date on which payment is made. 73. That the Court already observed that the State incurred in arrears, reason for which, according to the aforementioned criteria, in any case the exchange rate that should be used to make the payments is the one in force the day before the date on which the State actually made the payment (Supra Considering Clause 67). Thus, the State shall make the respective calculations and, in its case, pay the corresponding difference. d) Modalities for the delivery of payments 74. That the State expressed that payment of the compensations should be carried out according to that stipulated in the Judgment in its paragraph 288, this is, directly to the beneficiaries, and that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice understood in good faith that payment should be made in that manner. Likewise, it added that since on December 28, 2007 no request had been filed by the beneficiaries or by the representatives regarding the form of payment, the same was made through the Banco Agrario. 75. That on their part, the representatives indicated that Order No. 825 established that payment would be made directly to the beneficiaries, despite the fact that the next of kin of the victims expressed their will to be represented by the Colombian Commission of Jurists, including for the effects of compliance with the Judgment. The reasons for this, as argued by the representatives, are related to the places where they reside, which would make the payment difficult since there are no branches of the bank where the deposit was made or simply that the displacements in the area may imply a risk within the framework of the armed conflict. The representatives also mentioned that said order imposed the obligation on the people benefited to prove their condition of victim, in contrast to that expressed by the Judgment of interpretation issued by the Court (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). In that sense the compliance with the obligations stated in the Judgment of the Court were delayed in an unjustified manner. The representatives are demanding that this Tribunal order the State to respect the mandate granted by the beneficiaries of the compensations to the Colombian Commission of Jurists to receive and claim the comprehensive payment of the amounts set in the Judgment. During the hearing, the representatives indicated that the State had tried to prove it had acted in good faith and that it strictly complied with the rules of the domestic law, besides having applied a settlement adjustment to the government measure. They reiterated that it simply omitted, in a deliberate manner, the representation of the next of kin of the victims they have been carrying out and that “the State paid in installments the compensation and thus, it has not paid it.” Even though the State expressed that when the beneficiaries presented themselves at the Banco Agrario with their identification, they may withdraw their compensatory payment, this is not true, since there were cases in which the money was not given to them, and sometimes even when the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice orders the payment, the local Bank may decide to not make the payment. In this same sense, they expressed that payment was prevented on one opportunity based on order 2374, since the birth certificates of two victims were being demanded even though those documents had already been presented in the proceedings before the Court.