5 summoned the beneficiaries accordingly,” and that a communiqué would also be published in a widely read newspaper. 5. The December 18, 2001 note by the Secretariat in which, under instructions by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it pointed out to the State certain inconsistencies and omissions in the names listed in the communiqué that it was going to publish, regarding the information on beneficiaries of the reparations available in the file at the Court. The State replied, in its December 20, 2001 note, that Francisco Corado Barrientos, Avilio Carrillo Martínez and René Argueta Beltrán “[were] not included in the communiqué [because] they had already been located.” 6. The December 17 and 21, 2001 communications by the Inter-American Commission and those by Mark Martel –representing some of the next of kin of the victims-, on December 17 and 18, 2001, in which they sent some of the addresses requested for the beneficiaries (supra Having Seen 3). In its last communication, the Commission pointed out that it was “under the understanding that [the State was] in contact or ha[d] the necessary information to communicate with [...] the beneficiaries [...] and that a published ‘summons’ in the media in those cases [wa]s neither useful nor necessary.” In this regard, the Commission deemed it advisable and important to avoid unnecessary publicity mentioning the beneficiaries by their name, since many of the next of kin of the victims had referred, in their statements as witnesses before the Court, to feelings of insecurity and fear, and due to the fact that those responsible for the facts were at large. However, it stated that it deemed publicity important regarding the Judgment and compliance with it, “in the framework of the process of elucidation of past human rights violations.” Finally, with respect to the three beneficiaries whom it had not yet been possible to contact,2 and “in accordance with what has been done in other, similar situations,” the Commission proposed that a trust fund be set up in each of their names for at least one year, with the respective amount of money for their compensation. 7. The February 6, 2002 communication by Mark Martel, in which he forwarded a copy of the brief that he had sent to the State, in which he pointed out that there had been delays in the payment of compensation. 8. The February 8, 2002 note by the Secretariat in which, under instructions by the President, it asked the State to send information on the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in its Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen 2). 9. The February 19, 2002 brief by the State, in which it reported that there had been “a certain delay in the timely payment of economic reparations,” due to the difficult financial situation of the State and the difficulties to locate the beneficiaries. However, it stated that 60.6 per cent had been paid, while 21 per cent “[wa]s in the form [...] of nine banker’s drafts against the Citibank of New York, pending only to be sent;” and that 15.4% was “in the stage of being deposited in the national commercial banking system, pursuant to the orders of the Court, and these payments c[ould] be made once the beneficiaries [we]re legally empowered to receive them,” while 3 per cent was the amount for beneficiaries whose domicile had not yet been ascertained. The State specified that the bank deposit of the money for compensation due to the two minors identified and the alleged son of William Otilio González Rivera had not yet been made for lack of the pertinent legal 2 Augusto Angárita Ramírez, Doris Torres Gil and Marco Antonio Montes Letona.