18 60. That even though the State did not present any receipts of the payments made, the representatives indicated that they effectively received the amounts that, to such end, were ordered in said resolutions. The representatives did not question the amounts ordered by the State, apart from observing that there was a devaluation of the dollar between the date of the Judgment and the date of the effective payment, which does not constitute noncompliance on the part of the State to make the corresponding payments. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude from the observations presented by the representatives that all the beneficiaries indicated in the Judgment received the corresponding compensation. When referring to the compliance with this measure, the representatives used expressions that suggest that the State did not deposit an amount in favor of some beneficiaries. For example, in the last observations forwarded to the Tribunal regarding this aspect, the representatives indicated that by means of the Resolution 5898 of December 28, 2007, the State complied with "most of the payment of the compensations ordered by the Court" and that "by means of Resolution 2088 of May [27] 2008, it was ordered a deposit […] in favor of some people". The lack of accuracy regarding which people received or which did not receive the corresponding compensation prevents the Tribunal from declaring the full compliance with this obligation. For this reason, it deems pertinent to request the parties to submit detailed information in this regard (infra Considering clauses 61 to 64, 67 and 71 and Operative Paragraph 2). 61. That after examining the documentation forwarded to the Tribunal it is possible to verify that some of the victims and beneficiaries mentioned in the Judgment have been apparently excluded from Resolutions 5898 and 2088; therefore it is impossible to know whether they received the corresponding compensations. Nevertheless, considering there are only two relevant resolutions and that the observations submitted by the representatives are not accurate and do not refer to each and every one of the beneficiaries, the Tribunal cannot be certain about the people who were compensated or about the amounts effectively delivered. Therefore, the Court deems pertinent to request the parties to submit detailed information in this regard (infra Operative Paragraph 2 and 3). 62. That even though the Judgment indicated that within the 24 months following notification of this judgment, people different from the ones mentioned in the Judgment may prove their condition as beneficiaries of the reparations,26 no sufficient evidence has been tendered to the court file for this Tribunal to determine whether this is the reason why resolutions 5898 and 2088 also ordered payments in favor of people that were not identified in the Judgment. Hence, it seems necessary to request thorough and detailed information in this regard (infra Operative Paragraph 2). 63. That, in this sense, some of the victims and beneficiaries have directly expressed certain doubts to the Tribunal in relation to the payments that correspond to them in view of the Judgment (supra Having Seen clauses 5, 6 and 7). In this sense, Mrs. Marta Marlene Barrera Pino submitted to the Tribunal a copy of a "Record of Statement” addressed to the State, by means of which she indicated that after almost eleven years she has "not received the compensation for the loss suffered" due to the armed incursion in El Aro and requested the Court the “full restitution”. In this regard, it is uncertain for the Tribunal whether the State or the representatives have answered such queries. Even though Mrs. Marleny Barrera Pino is not mentioned as beneficiary of the reparations ordered in the Judgment, the Tribunal notes that Mrs. Barrera Pino could have proved her condition as beneficiary of the reparations within 24 months of notification of this Judgment (supra Considering Clause 26 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 358.