payment of the compensation to their next of kin who, in principle, are identified in the Judgment (supra para. 47). 56. However, based on what the representatives indicated in their request for interpretation, the Court understands that, possibly, the victims recorded in the Diario Militar haves other family members who should receive part of the compensation provided in the Judgment in favor of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar, based on their status as heirs. The Court considers that the Judgment and, in particular, paragraphs 364 and 385 thereof, does not exclude the possibility that next of kin who are not identified or accredited as victims in the case, can receive, as heirs, part of the compensation established in favor of their relative recorded in the Diario Militar. However, in contrast to other cases, in this case, the Court did not establish in the Judgment a specific mechanism for determining other possible family members of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar. 57. Despite this, the Court considers that it is clear from the Judgment that the State must pay the compensation ordered in that decision in favor of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar within two years and as established in paragraph 364. Therefore, the Court considers it pertinent that, in order to assist the State to comply with the payment of the compensation to the victims within the time frame and in the manner set out in the Judgment, the possible next of kin of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar who are not identified in the Annex to the Judgment but who are in one of the categories indicated in paragraph 364 of the Judgment, must come forward and authenticate this before the Presidential Commission for Coordinating the Executive’s Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) or before the entity of the Executive Branch that the State designates to this end, within 30 days of notification of this decision. After these 30 days, the possible next of kin have six months to approach COPREDEH or, when appropriate, the entity designated by the State, with the pertinent identification documents, official documents that prove their family relationship, or other probative means that conclusively prove their identity and relationship to the victims of this case recorded in the Diario Militar. If, after those six months, other next of kin of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar corresponding to the categories established in paragraph 364 have not come forward before the competent domestic authorities, the State may distribute the compensation established in the Judgment in favor of the disappeared victims and of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz among the next of kin identified in the Judgment. Regarding the latter, the Court stresses that the State may not demand that the “next of kin who are victims” already identified in the Judgment comply with additional requirements at the domestic level or file an inheritance proceeding for the purpose of the distribution of the compensation of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar (infra para. 61). 58. Moreover, the Court notes that, for the effects of their participation in the distribution of the compensation in accordance with the criteria established in paragraph 364 of the Judgment, the State must take into account the provisions of paragraph 372 of the Judgment, in the sense that it must consider Laurenta Marina Sosa Calderón to be the mother of Orencio Sosa Calderón, because, even though she is his sister, she was the one who took care of him and raised him on the death of their mother; also, it must consider the nephews of Rubén Amílcar Farfán to be his children because, according to information provided by the representatives and not disputed by the State, they considered him to be their father. 21 While the Court indicated these assumptions in order to establish the non-pecuniary compensation, the Court clarifies that these criteria should also be taken into account for the purpose of the participation of these persons in the distribution of the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary compensation of their respective disappeared family members. 21 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 372. 14