36 108. When monitoring compliance in one case,80 the Court authorized the parties to make the payments of compensation to beneficiaries who were minors through an investment in term deposit certificates, instead of setting up a trust fund as ordered in the judgment on reparations, because the investment in term deposit certificates was the most favorable for the minor beneficiaries. The Court even called upon the State to take “the necessary measures so that, in future, the interests of the minors w[ould] not be affected by inflation.” In another case,81 in order to comply with the judgment on reparations delivered by the Court, the State asked its opinion on whether the administrative and financial expenses arising from the trust funds ordered in the said judgment as a form of payment for the minor beneficiaries could be deducted, to the detriment of the capital deposited and of the interests of the said beneficiaries. In this respect, the Court responded that the said expenses must be paid by the State, which was not allowed to deduct any percentage of the compensation due to the minors, to the detriment of the capital deposited in trust.82 109. Lastly, another example that reveals the acceptance by the States of the competence of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions occurred when a State consulted the Court about whether filing the investigation into the facts that constituted the matter of the case at the domestic level relieved it of the responsibility established in the Court’s judgment.83 In its reply to this State communication, the Court decided that the State must “continue to investigate the facts and prosecute and punish those responsible; consequently, reopening the respective judicial proceeding.”84 F) POSITION OF THE OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT 110. Added to the above, it should be emphasized that, as of the very first cases heard by the Court, when presenting its annual report, the Court has informed the OAS General Assembly of the procedure followed to monitor compliance with If monitoring compliance with the judgments and their compliance status.85 80 Cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of 29 de enero de 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 61 and first operative paragraph; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 4, 2001, having seen paragraph 3; and Note CDH-10.319/643 de January 20, 1999. 81 Cf. Barrios Altos case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, para. 35 and second operative paragraph in fine; and Barrios Altos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2003, having seen paragraph 15. 82 Barrios Altos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2003, seventh to thirteenth considering paragraphs and second operative paragraph. 83 Cf. Durand and Ugarte case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 13, 2002, having seen paragraph 4. 84 Cf. Durand and Ugarte case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 13, 2002, second operative paragraph. 85 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1990, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.23 doc.12, pp. 15 and 16; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1991, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.25 doc.7, p. 9; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos,