as “a procedure before a civil judge or public notary,” the deposit of the appropriate amounts in “an account or deposit certificate in a solvent Mexican banking institution and in the most favorable financial conditions permitted under Mexican law and banking practice,” and even the option requested by the petitioners that "the compensations be deposited at the Inter-American Court.” However, it indicated that the representatives have only accepted “the compensation of one of the victims, Ms. Andrea Radilla Martínez, via voluntary jurisdiction before a notary public.” According to the State, the other beneficiaries of indemnifications have expressed their desire not to receive the amounts ordered in the Judgment until progress is made in the ongoing criminal investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla. Thus, the State noted that “with the purpose of fulfilling this obligation, the funds will remain available at the Ministry of Interior until the next of kin of the victims wish to receive it.” 51. With respect to the indemnification for Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, the representatives indicated that the forms of compliance offered by the State are “unacceptable,” as they require the presentation of a “declaration of death” by a judge or a death certificate, including the “new method of payment consisting of a voluntary jurisdiction proceeding before a notary public in Mexico City.” In that regard, they stated that “it is highly shameful to the family of Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco to force them to initiate the procedure of declaration of death, as they have taken all necessary actions to achieve justice and learn of his whereabouts for over 35 years.” Thus, Tita and Rosendo Radilla Martínez, Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco's children, decided "not to accept, for the moment, the compensation corresponding to [their father]," nor the compensation "allocated directly to them." Finally, they requested, “as a preferred alternative to a deposit in a Mexican financial institution,” that the amounts be deposited at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as “this alternative would give greater confidence to the victims and create less emotional distress.” 52. The Commission noted that "the implementation of this reparation measure cannot become a factor that re-victimizes Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s relatives […]." In this regard, it indicated that the State must “provide special attention to the needs and desires of the beneficiaries of reparations,” and it noted that the indemnification payment for Ms. Andrea Radilla Martínez has been agreed upon. Finally, it emphasized that neither the State nor the representatives had submitted information on the payment of costs and expenses. 53. From the submissions of the representatives and the State, the Court observes that there are two different controversies: one the one hand, that related to the payment of the indemnification corresponding to Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, and on the other hand, that related to the payment to other beneficiaries. The Court considers it appropriate to clarify that the Judgment, in a general manner, established that the State must pay the indemnifications directly to their beneficiaries within one year as of the date on which the Judgment was served. 54. With respect to the indemnifications corresponding to Mr. Radilla Pacheco, the Court ordered in the Judgment that the compensation corresponding to Mr. Radilla Pacheco be distributed equally among his heirs. In this regard, the Court considers that it is acceptable that domestic procedures be used in order to achieve payment of the corresponding indemnifications. However, these procedures cannot generate a disproportionate burden to victims that unnecessarily impedes the implementation of this reparation measure in their favor. Additionally, the Court notes that, in its Judgment, it did not provide for receiving deposits for the payment of indemnification for Mr. Radilla Pacheco as a possibility. 16