8 having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that the authorization requested by the State in that report “was unacceptable, because the next of kin of María del Carmen Santana ha[d] already been identified and it was incumbent to proceed to comply with the judgment as regards payment of the compensation.” 32. Note CDH-10,319/722 of August 21, 2000, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the whole Court, requested the State to provide information on “the reasons why it ha[d] not proceeded to pay the compensation […]” to the closest next of kin of María del Carmen Santana. 33. The report of the State of October 2, 2000, and its attachments, in which it referred to the compensation for the next of kin of María del Carmen Santana. In this respect, it stated that it was not legally in order to pay Ana Vitelma Ortiz, because there were inconsistencies between [the records of] the Registry Office for Births and the birth certificate presented, with regard to the names of both the maternal and the paternal grandparents of Ms. Santana. It also indicated that the doubts about the authenticity of the documents submitted by Ana Vitelma Ortiz, should be resolved by the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General. 34. The brief of November 6, 2000, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s report of October 2, 2000 (supra thirty-third having seen paragraph). In this respect, it expressed its concern for the failure to investigate the death of the victims, for the failure to take measures to locate their remains, and for the delay in paying the compensation corresponding to Ms. Santana’s next of kin. It also indicated that the State had not complied with the judgment of the Court and requested the Court to order Colombia to “provide information on progress in identifying, prosecuting and punishing those responsible[;] [...] about the measures to locate the remains of the victims and deliver them to their next of kin[, and] to [c]ompensate the closest next of kin of María del Carmen Santana.” 35. The report of the State of December 28, 2000, in which it indicated that an agreement had been reached with the representatives of the victims and their next of kin about delivery of the compensation corresponding to the alleged mother, even though, to date, no one had come forward to make the claim. In this respect, it indicated that the documents presented allowed the relationship of Ana Vitelma Ortiz to be inferred, and she would make a sworn statement saying “[t]hat María del Carmen Santana [had been] detained and disappeared by State agents[;][…][t]hat Mrs. Ortiz ha[d] not received any payment[; and] that the woman who had disappeared had no children […].” 36. The brief of July 12, 2001, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s report of December 28, 2000 (supra thirtyfifth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that the payment of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) had been made to Ana Vitelma Ortiz. However, it indicated that payment of the interest earned from the date on which the trust fund was set up in January 1998 and the date on which payment was effectively made in May 2001 remained pending. Lastly, the Commission reiterated the need for the State to comply with the investigation and punishment of those responsible and finding the remains of the victims. 37. The Order on compliance with judgment issued by the Court on December 4, 2001, in which it decided: