23 56. That in the Judgment, the Court ordered, only regarding the next-of-kin of three of the victims concerning whom the information needed to identify them is not available, specific measures to identify them and maintained open the possibility of considering them when monitoring compliance with the judgment 13. However, this Court notes that the next-of-kin mentioned by the representatives, on this occasion, are not related to those three victims, namely, Juan Bautista, Alberto Gómez or Húber Pérez. As a result, the people referred to by the representatives shall be able to consult with the competent Colombian authorities to assert what they consider to be their rights in relation to the victims of the instant case. 57. That in relation to the alleged incorrect distribution of the payments in case of death of one of the beneficiaries, this Tribunal notes that the representatives have timely confirmed that the State had made 90% of the payments, which was declared by this Court in the Order of July 10, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause 3). Furthermore, this Tribunal recalls that the distribution of the compensatory amounts among the next-of-kin of the victims should be done in accordance with the criteria and terms established in the Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 230 and 231 thereof. 58. That as to the payment made to Mrs. Myriam Mantilla Sánchez, this Court considers that the State should review such payment and grant her what may correspond in relation to the decision made in the Judgment or otherwise, provide an explanation of the case. 59. That, subject to prior compliance with this aspect, the Court deems pertinent to require detailed information regarding these last two aspects (supra Considering clauses 57 and 58) mentioned by the representatives. * * * 60. That, as to the obligation to deposit the compensation ordered in favor of the beneficiaries who are minors in a banking investment, while they are minors (operative paragraph twenty-two and paragraph 290 of the Judgment), the State mentioned that “there were no children in the payment of this judgment and therefore, the payment was made to all the beneficiaries in the same manner.” Nor the representatives or the Commission presented observations in this respect. 61. That the Court verifies that the disagreements expressed by the representatives regarding the payments made did not refer to this situation. Considering that the parties have not contested this aspect and in view of the available information, the Tribunal considers this aspect to be without effect and therefore, it shall close the procedure to monitor compliance in relation to this aspect. * * 13 * Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia, supra note 9, para. 233 and 234.