19 62)27. However, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information to make such determination. Therefore, the Court deems pertinent to request the parties to submit detailed information in this regard (infra Operative Paragraph 2 and 3). 64. That, likewise, according to the court file, Messr. José Marcelino Barrera Sucerquia addressed a “Certification Record” to the State, with a copy to the Tribunal, by means of which he indicated that in March 2008 he received, “as compensation” for the damage suffered in El Aro, the amount of $20.000.000 (twenty million of Colombian pesos), but he expressed that such amount does not correspond to the amount of $32.000.000 (thirty two million of Colombian pesos) agreed on "in the record of delivery sent to him by the National Ministry”, which he did not consider to be correct either; therefore, he requested a clarification as to this discrepancy. In this regard, it is uncertain for the Tribunal whether the State or the representatives have answered such queries. Furthermore, even though in the Judgment it was determined that Messr. Barrera Sucerquia should receive US$ 14.000,00 (fourteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) as compensation, the Tribunal repeats that there is no sufficient evidence to determine whether the beneficiary effectively received the amount that corresponded to him; and therefore it deems pertinent to request further information in this regard (infra Operative Paragraph 2 and 3). 65. That, on several occassions, Mrs. Rosa María Posada George and her son, Marco Aurelio Areiza Posada, expressed in writing to this Tribunal their concern about the amounts the representatives delivered to them as compensations ordered in the Judgment in their favor and in favor of the other son, José Leonel Areiza Posada. Hence, they expressed their concern about not knowing whether the amount they received correspond to the total compensation that the Court ordered in their favor and they indicated that they did not understand why the legal representatives deducted certain sums from their payments. Moreover, they pointed out that Mrs. Posada is unaware of the content of certain documents that the representatives asked her to sign, since she is illiterate. In this regard, the representatives informed that the doubts of Mrs. Posada deal with, first, the payments ordered in favor of her two sons as the result of the agreement reached at the administrative jurisdiction and second, the payments ordered by this Court in the Judgment. Regarding the first aspect, they presented evidence that confirms that the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos delivered to Mrs. Posada what was ordered in favor of her two sons in the domestic proceeding and pointed out that they are not familiar with the amount and details related to any deduction that said lawyer would have made as fees. Regarding the second aspect, the representatives indicated that they deducted from the amount that corresponded to said people a 30% as legal fees, as permitted by the domestic legislation. 66. That, in relation to what was mentioned above, the Tribunal considers that it is not competent to solve a dispute of such a nature between private individuals, since at this stage of the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment, the Inter-American Court only has to determine whether the Colombian State complied with the terms of such Judgment. The powers of the Court are limited to the enforcement and interpretation of the American Convention —an instrument that exclusively deals with the rights and obligations of the States, not individuals.28 Therefore, any dispute related to attorney fee agreement 27 28 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 358. Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C Nº 146, para. 136; and Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006; Considering Clause 16.