7 10. That, according to the information forwarded by the representatives (supra Having seen paragraph 21), four members of the family of Julio Pastor Ceballos did not attend the two meetings convened to make the payment, so that the “amount corresponding to each person who did not attend was deposited in a bank account where it will remain available until those persons communicate with the bank.” Also, the representatives indicated that the State had “had made an effort to convene the beneficiaries to two meetings to make the payment. Notice of the meetings had been published in different regional newspapers and in a newspaper with national circulation, as well as being broadcast by radio.” 11. That, pursuant to the case law and consistent practice of the Court, if, for reasons that can be attributed to the beneficiaries of the compensation, they are unable to receive it within the time indicated by the Court, the State shall deposit such amounts in favor of the beneficiaries in an account or deposit certificate in a solvent Venezuelan financial institution, under the most favorable financial conditions permitted by law and banking practice. If, after ten years, the compensation has not been claimed, the amounts shall be returned to the State with the interest accrued. 12. That the representatives indicated that four beneficiaries of the judgment on reparations in this case had died in the time between the payment of the compensation and the payment of the interest on arrears, so that this payment was made to their heirs. 13. That, pursuant to the case law and consistent practice of the Court, the amount corresponding to the beneficiaries of compensation who die before it is delivered to them shall be shared out in accordance with domestic law.4 14. That, with regard to the obligation to investigate and punish the persons responsible for the human rights violations committed in this case, the representatives and the Commission have considered that the State has not complied with conducting a satisfactory investigation, because it has not shown that any real progress has been made in this regard. The representatives indicated that the case was closed judicially owing to the confirmation of the judgment of the Court Martial by a ruling of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 20, 1998. The State advised that the Attorney General’s Office had commissioned the Forty-ninth Prosecutor “to hear [the case] ] together with the Prosecutor from the Attorney General’s Office for the Transitory Procedural Regime of the state of Táchira,” […] in order to uncover new elements of significance for the case. 15. The Court finds that, from the information provided, there is no evidence that the State has made any significant progress in complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible. 4 Cf. Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 211; the case of Acevedo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 305, and López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 203.