forum]” at the Specialized Court on Execution of Supranational Sentences (supra Considering clause 65). The Court deems it appropriate to clarify that it does not correspond to the domestic judicial authorities of Peru to determine the obligation to provide reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and that this obligation and its particularities, such as the determination of the beneficiaries of the reparations and compensation amounts, were determined by the Court in the Judgment. When the Court establishes these aspects regarding compensation, it is precisely to avoid, insofar as possible, that the beneficiaries of these pecuniary reparations have to go through an internal process that could unnecessarily delay the delivery of the compensation established in the Judgment. In this regard, the Court considers that the method for compliance with this measure of reparation should not necessarily imply a legal proceeding, much less, if more than seven years have passed wherein this method has not allowed for the effective implementation of the measure. 72. Nevertheless, it must be stated that in paragraphs 425 and 433(c)(v) and (vi) of the judgment regarding compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, respectively, of the surviving victims, the Court ruled that, because it did not have the necessary evidence to determine the disability level of each individual, such determination should be made by the domestic bodies specialized in classification of injuries and disabilities at the request of the interested parties, who should submit their request within eight months from the notification of the Judgment. Upon the determination of domestic bodies specialized in this field, each surviving victim would be paid in accordance with the compensation amounts established in paragraphs 425 and 433(c)(i), (ii),(iii), and (iv) of the Judgment corresponding to amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In that regard, the Court notes that the intervention of the domestic bodies in this case applies only to the determination of disability category of the surviving victims and not for other damages ordered in the Judgment. 73. In addition, in paragraph 420 of the judgment, the Court ordered a period of eight months from the date of notification thereof, in order for the next of kin of the 41 deceased victims who were not singled out by the Court in the merits proceeding, to appear before the competent authorities of the State and demonstrate, through a sufficient means of identification, their relationship or kinship with the victim and that they were alive at the time the events occurred. This was requested in order that compensation be delivered directly to them, similarly to the way it was ordered for those who were identified in the Judgment. 74. Referring to the proceedings before the Specialized Court of Supranational Sentences, the common intervener Cassel in his brief of March 13, 2013, stated that certain differences between the names in the attachment to the Judgment and the actual names of victims “has served as an excuse for the State’s noncompliance with the Judgment” regarding this measure of reparation (supra Considering clause 69). In this regard, the common intervener indicated as an example of the differences between the name entered in the Judgment and the actual name of the victim, among others, the omission of one of the last names of the victim, the omission of a middle name, and the substitution of one letter for another in the name. 65 In this sense, in the case file of monitoring compliance with the Judgment there is a request made on August 26, 2010 submitted by the Public Prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice to the Special Court on Execution of Supranational Sentences in the 65 Indicated that: The correct name is Cesar Augusto Rodriguez Paredes, and the name entered in the Judgment was Cesar Augusto Paredes; the correct name is Consuelo Rojas Barreto and the name entered in the Judgment is Maria Consuelo Rojas Barreto; the correct name is Tito Roger Valle Travezaño and the name entered in the Judgment is Tito Roger Valle Travezaño (brief filed by the common intervener Douglass Cassel on March 13, 2013, case file on Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, take IV, folio 1957 ). 31