However, the Court highlights that the State proposed a method of payment in a Mexican financial institution which conforms to the Judgment if it were necessary for the 25 compensation to be paid in that manner. Considering that the deadline established in the Judgment for compliance with this reparation measure in favor of Mr. Radilla Pacheco has elapsed, the Tribunal requests that the State submit specific and detailed information on the statements made by the representatives that payment may not be carried out through a voluntary jurisdiction proceeding before a notary public. Likewise, the Court requests that the representatives provide specific and detailed information as to the reasons why they do not want payments to be made through a deposit in a Mexican banking institution. 55. The Court notes that the State manifested that the representatives authorized the compensation payment for Ms. Andrea Radilla Martínez, daughter of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, through voluntary jurisdiction before a public notary. Additionally, both the State and the representatives indicated that Ms. Tita and Mr. Rosendo Radilla Martínez have not accepted payment of their indemnifications. According to the State, this is because they consider that there has been no progress in investigations. This statement was not denied by the representatives. In this regard, the Court reiterates, first, that the Judgment established a one-year deadline for the State's compliance with this reparation measure and, second, that the Judgment did not condition the payment of indemnifications on the progress of investigations into the facts of this case. The payment of indemnifications is an autonomous obligation which is independent of other forms of reparations ordered from the State. Therefore, given that the State indicated that it was able to make the payments corresponding to Ms. Rita and Mr. Rosendo Radilla Martínez, among others, and given that these beneficiaries do not wish to receive payment, the Court considers that the requirements set out in paragraph 390 of the Judgment for the State to proceed, following the criteria in that paragraph, with compliance with this reparation measure through a bank deposit in a Mexican financial institution have been satisfied. 56. Furthermore, the Court notes that neither the representatives nor the State have submitted information concerning the payment of costs and expenses. The Court therefore requests both parties to present relevant information to it. K. Request of the victims' representatives for a hearing to monitor compliance 57. The representatives stated that in virtue of the “current contradictions between the State and the representatives of the victims with regard to full compliance with the Judgment,” and “with the purpose of requesting the Court to urge the United Mexican States to effectively comply [therewith],” they requested that the Tribunal hold a “hearing to monitor compliance with the [J]udgment at the next Regular Period of Sessions.” 25 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 390. “If, for reasons attributable to the beneficiaries of the compensations or their heirs, respectively, it were not possible for them to receive the amounts within the indicated period, the State shall deposit those amounts in their favor in an account or a deposit certificate in a Mexican financial institution, in United States dollars, and in the most favorable financial conditions permitted by law and banking practices. If, after 10 years, the compensation has not been claimed, the amounts shall revert to the State with the accrued interest.” 17