7 measures which are necessary for proper integration of persons belonging to minority ethnic groups into the national education system. 29. Regarding the method of payment of the scholarship, the Court points out that it may vary according to the nature of the activities supported by such grant, which shall cover all expenses related to the beneficiary’s higher studies and shall be disbursed periodically, as these studies may only be completed over time. Disbursement of the scholarship amount shall therefore be made according to the method established and shall be divided into partial payments. Hence, in principle, it is not to be made in a single payment. That notwithstanding, a different method may be agreed upon by the State and the beneficiary, once the latter has come of age. VII REGARDING PAYMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES 30. The State pointed out that the Judgment ordered payment of US$ 12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars) as costs and expenses, which must be delivered to Etelvina Zapata, the victim’s mother, so that they are distributed among her next of kin and the representatives. The State pointed out that “in Colombia, compensation amounts are normally collected by the non-government organization that represented the victims’ next of kin in the proceeding brought before the InterAmerican Court.” Thus, the State requested the Court to clarify “whether the amount awarded as costs and expenses is to be directly and solely delivered to Etelvina Zapata or may be delivered to her representatives, as authorized by a power-of–attorney granted thereto for that purpose.” 31. The Commission considered that “as these issues are related to the method of compliance with the reparation measures ordered in the [J]udgment, it is precisely within the scope of the follow-up and monitoring of compliance with such reparation measures that they may be raised. Therefore, it finds the question raised by the State to be inadmissible.” 32. The representatives pointed out that the terms used by the Court in paragraph 188 are “accurate and succinct and do not give rise to misunderstandings.” Thus, they understand that “payment is to be made directly to Etelvina Zapata, the victim’s mother, and not to her legal representatives.” 33. In this regard, paragraph 188 of the Judgment states that: To such end, the Court, taking into account the evidence produced and in accordance with its case law, deems it fair to set in equity the amount of US$ 12,000 (twelve thousand United States dollars), to be reimbursed to Etelvina Zapata for the expenses incurred in order to start proceedings before the domestic authorities, as well as for those arising from the proceedings brought before the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights. Mrs. Zapata shall distribute the amount disbursed among her next of kin and the representatives, in accordance with the aid they may have provided her with along the proceedings. 34. The Court has noted that according to the above paragraph it is clear that it is Etelvina Zapata who must receive payment of the amount set as costs and expenses. Such payment may be personally collected by her or a person appointed by her for that purpose, pursuant to the provisions of applicable domestic legislation.