the judgment, the amounts of money paid to the victims prior to the issuance of the judgment B.1. Consultation of the State and comments from the Commission 17. The State requested clarification as to whether "it is possible to update," upon "liquidation" of the pecuniary reparations, the monetary sums indicated in paragraph 278 of the judgment, which refers to sums already delivered to the victims in this case as reparations prior to the issuance of the judgment. Uruguay asked that it be taken into account that the "amounts already disbursed were disbursed some time ago." Beyond this statement, it did not offer further rationale for its request or detail the methodology to be used for the update. 18. The Commission indicated that "it would be pertinent for the Inter-American Court to clarify the matter for the State". B.2. Considerations of the Court 19. The Court recalls that paragraph 278 of the Judgment it stated the following: The amounts that have already been distributed domestically to the victims as monetary reparation for acts declared in violation of human rights in this judgment may be discounted by the State from the amount due to each victim as compensation under the terms of this judgment. This does not apply to the monetary reparations that the State awarded to the next of kin of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Raggio for their deaths since that is beyond the determination of reparations of this judgment. Notwithstanding the information that the State has already provided to the Court (supra para. 273), to implement the discount the State must, at the stage of monitoring compliance in this case, prove the effective delivery of the amounts awarded domestically. Moreover, in no case can the State view the domestic awarding of monetary reparations, set by domestic judicial and extrajudicial mechanisms, that might result in monetary amounts greater than those stipulated in this judgment as implying a balance in favor of the State that the beneficiaries are obligated to return. 20. This paragraph makes no specifications with respect to updating the amounts of money delivered to the victims prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor does the judgment do so elsewhere. In view of the foregoing, and given that the State's consultation has a bearing on the manner in which it must comply with the pecuniary reparations ordered in favor of the victims, it is admissible. 21. The Court notes that paragraph 273 of the judgment included some monetary amounts that the State reported that it had paid to the next of kin of the direct victims in this case, with their equivalence in United States dollars—included in the judgment— reported by Uruguay. The Court also provided for the possibility that, during the execution stage of the judgment, Uruguay may “prove the effective delivery of the amounts awarded domestically.” Therefore, at that stage, the State may submit complete and accurate information on the amounts paid out prior to issuance of the judgment. 22. However, it should be noted that prior to the issuance of the judgment, when reporting on the amounts paid, the State gave their equivalence in United States dollars and did not request that provision be made to update those amounts should pecuniary reparations be ordered. Furthermore, in its request for interpretation of the Judgment, Uruguay merely asked whether it would be possible to update the monetary amounts paid prior to the issuance of the judgment. It offered no further considerations or explanations in this regard, beyond highlighting the obvious fact that they were paid "some time ago," something that can be ascertained from the information contained in 5