ii) Method of allocating payments and the calculation of the delay 15. Regarding this matter, the Court finds that the State made several payments to Juan Francisco Bueno Alves, Inés del Carmen Afonso Fernández, Verónica Inés Bueno, Ivonne Miriam Bueno, and Juan Francisco Bueno for compensation ordered in the Judgment. In favor of Mr. Bueno Alves, the State also made a second payment that it intended to cover accrued interest on the aforementioned compensation. However, the representative objected to the State’s actions, arguing that under Argentine law the payment of interest must precede the payment of the principal. This, the representative explained, was because the amounts still owed by the State form part of the principal, not the interest, and they therefore continue to accrue interest until their final satisfaction or cancellation. The State, without denying these interpretations of the provisions of its domestic law, considered that they nonetheless did not apply in this case because Mr. Bueno Alves had signed an authorization certifying the payments (supra Considering clause 8) in which he essentially consented to this very thing, namely, that these legal provisions did not apply. The representative argued in turn that, at the time of signing this document (supra Considering clause 10), Mr. Bueno Alves was not aware that he was in fact giving his consent. 16. The Court finds that the State, in addition to paying the amounts ordered by the Court, has also effectuated payment of interest totaling more than eighty thousand dollars of the United States of America (supra Considering clause 7). However, the Court notes that in the specific circumstances of the present case, it is not appropriate for it to insert itself into the controversy between the parties concerning how best to apply the aforementioned provisions of Argentine domestic law on the calculation of interest owed. 17. Concerning the relevant time period for the calculation of accrued interest, the Court notes that the State made this calculation from its deadline to pay until September 30, 2009, the date on which it issued the payment order. The representative observed that interest should have been calculated until November 30, 2009, when this amount was actually transferred to the victim. However, the Court finds that under the specific circumstances of the present case it is reasonable to accept the calculation of accrued interest until the date on which the payment order was issued because the amount of time that passed until the actual payment was made was not excessive. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the delay between the issuance of the payment order and the date on which presentment was made at the bank was the result of a clearly irrational act on the part of the State. Similar considerations are applicable to the payment of interests that correspond to the other victims. iii) Alleged interest owed for tax withholdings 18. Concerning the interest allegedly owed Juan Francisco Bueno Alves, Ivonne Miriam Bueno, and Juan Francisco Bueno for tax withholdings, the Court finds that, according to information provided by their own representative, not only were these amounts returned in their entirety, but that it was HSBC Bank who made the withholdings in the first instance, thus making them not attributable to the State. 8