6. In the same way that the Court has proceeded in other similar situations11, taking into consideration the will of the victim in this case not to comply with the the reparation measures relating to the publication and dissemination of the Judgment and its official summary (supra considerandum 5), the Court considers that the State does not have to comply with these measures and concludes the monitoring of the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment. B. Compensations for non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses B.1. Measures ordered by the Court 7. In the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment, the Court established that the State had to pay the amounts stipulated in paragraphs 15712 and 16513 of the Judgment, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and to reimburse costs and expenses. In paragraph 166, the Court stipulated the method of compliance with these payments, establishing that they should be made directly to Mr. Alibux, within one year from the date of notification of the Judgment. B.2. Considerations of the Court 8. The State indicated that the payments ordered in the Judgment had been made and, to prove this, provided a copy of the bank statement of Mr. Alibux14. Furthermore, Mr. Alibux maintained in the note he addressed to the Presidency of this Court (supra considerandum 3), that “payment of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of USD 13,364.00, was made on August 28, 2017, by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Suriname”, and attached a copy of the same bank statement that the State had already submitted. 9. Taking into account the foregoing, the Court finds that Suriname has paid the victim the amounts established in the Judgment as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for the reimbursement of costs and expenses. Since Mr. Alibux has expressed his agreement with the payment made and indicated that he “has no additional interest in the implementation of the remaining reparations ordered in the Judgment of the Inter-American Court”, this Court considers that the State has 11 In this regard, see: Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, considerandum 6; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, considerandum 6; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 23, 2012, considerandum 8; Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 13, 2015, considerandum 9; Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 2017, considerandum 6; Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2017, considerandum 5, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 14, 2017, considerandum 7. 12 In paragraph 157 “the Court […] fixes, in equity, the sum of U.S. $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) by the way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Alibux”. 13 In paragraph 165 “the Court award[ed] the sum of U.S. $3,364.00 (three thousand three hundred and sixty-four dollars of the United States of America)” to reimburse costs and expenses. 14 2019). Cf. Copy of the bank statement of Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux (annex to the State’s report of December 12, -4-