paragraph 390 of the Judgment for the State proceed to comply with this measure of reparation through a bank deposit in a Mexican financial institution, following the criteria established in that paragraph, had been satisfied. Secondly, regarding the payment of the rest of the indemnities, the Court did not authorize the State to proceed with the bank deposit, but on the contrary, requested that the State provide further information on the matters reported by the representatives in the sense that that the payment could not be made through a voluntary jurisdiction proceeding before a notary public, as was asserted at that time. The Court also required the representatives to provide specific and detailed information on the reasons why they did not wish the payments to be made through a deposit in a Mexican banking institution. 14. Regarding the foregoing, the Court notes that the State proceeded to deposit, without distinction, all the amounts ordered as compensation in a banking institution, something that was not ordered by the Court, and that, in addition, the State deposited the corresponding payments before a judge, which also was not authorized by the Court, under the terms specified in the preceding paragraph. In the aforementioned Order of May 19, 2011, the Court made it clear that while it is acceptable to use domestic procedures to ensure effective payment of the indemnities, such procedures cannot create a disproportionate burden for the victims, which unnecessarily hinders compliance with this measure of reparation in their favor. 15. Nevertheless, regarding the compensation awarded directly to Tita, Rosendo and Andrea Radilla Martínez, victims in this case, the Court takes into account the representatives’ statement that, despite the deposit of the payment before the judge, Mrs. Tita and Mr. Rosendo Radilla Martínez are in a position to petition the judge to request the handover of the amounts deposited in their favor. In view of the representatives’ comments, the Court requests that these beneficiaries carry out the relevant procedures for this purpose since, if for reasons not attributable to the State said amounts were not received, the Court may consider this aspect of the reparation to have been fulfilled. In any case, under the circumstances indicated, the Court cannot consider this point of the reparation to have been fulfilled until such time as Tita and Rosendo Radilla Martínez effectively receive the amounts awarded in their favor, under the terms indicated. Moreover, regarding the specific status of the compensation to be paid to Andrea Radilla Martínez, now deceased, this should follow the procedure ordered under domestic legislation so that her heirs may receive the amount due. This is also contemplated in paragraph 388 of the Judgment, as already noted. Once the heirs of Mrs. Andrea Radilla Martínez receive the amounts due to them, the Court shall consider this reparation measure to have been fulfilled. 16. With regard to the deposit before a judge of the compensation awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered by Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco in favor of his heirs, the Court considers, as was accepted by the State during the private hearing (supra Considering paragraph 7), that the manner in which the State chose to comply with this measure creates a disproportionate burden for the beneficiaries, which is unnecessarily hindering compliance with this reparation measure. As is evident from the information provided by the representatives, and from the documents contained in the case file, the beneficiaries would need to obtain, among other things, a declaration of absence and, after two years, a declaration of presumed death, and would also need to cover a number of expenses for the processing thereof. In particular, the Court considers it unacceptable that, in a case of a person’s forced disappearance, a declaration of presumed death should be required so that the heirs may receive the compensation ordered by this Court. In 6