5 in Appendixes I, II and III of the judgment of July 1, 2006, the State indicated that “[r]ecognition of individuals who [were] not listed in the judgment resulted from the fact that the Grupo Interdisciplinario de Derechos Humanos [(the representatives)] proved to the Ministry [of Defense] the relationship of the beneficiaries with the victims, in compliance with paragraph 358 of the judgment.” In this regard, the State forwarded a list of individuals who were recognized by resolutions issued by the Ministry of Defense and who did not appear on the appendices to the judgment, with their names and their relationship to the victims. 11. The representatives stated, in general, “that all the information forwarded by the State concerning the payment of compensation is correct; however, in order to declare that the measure referred to in Appendix III has been complied with, it should be taken into account that the housing program is part of this and has not yet been fulfilled.” They also indicated that the case of Mercedes Barrera is the only one pending, and it will be examined below (infra * considering paragraph). 12. Regarding the alleged failure to make the payment in favor of the next of kin of the victim Omar Ivan Gutiérrez Nohava, the State indicated that the statement of sums due in the judgment failed to acknowledge the payments made by the State to seven of his next of kin under Resolution 1459 of September 12, 2005, in which it ordered payment for the damages recognized in the conciliatory agreement, which exceeded the amounts established in the Court’s judgment. The State indicated that there was a similar situation with two next of kin of Otoniel de Jesús Tejada because, under Resolution 1458 of December 12, 2005, payment was ordered for the damages recognized in the conciliatory agreement that exceeded the compensation established by the Court. The representatives did not contest the information presented by the State. 13. Regarding the claims submitted directly to the Court by Marta Marleny Barrera Pino, and which were detailed in considering paragraph 63 of the Order of the Court of July 7, 2009, the State advised that “to date no claim [had been submitted].” For their part, the representatives reported that they have never represented her and that, according to the information systems of the contentious jurisdiction, no lawyer has represented her in complaints against the State. 14. With regard to the situation reported to the Court concerning José Marcelino Barrera Sucerquia and described in considering paragraph 64 of the Order of the Court of July 7, 2009, the State indicated that the compensation in his favor was paid under Resolution 5898 of December 28, 2007. In addition, the representatives advised that “as soon as they became aware of [Mr.] Barrera’s alleged disagreement with the sum he received and the sum paid to the Grupo Interdisciplinario de Derechos Humanos as fees, [they contacted him] to hear his version directly.” In this regard, the representatives advised that Mr. Barrera explained to them that another beneficiary, Rosa Posada, had told him that, in “2005, an amount had been paid out,” and that he should make a claim because he had not received anything. Lastly, regarding all these discrepancies, the representatives indicated that Mr. Barrera Sucerquia had stated “that he thought [the payment of fees] was in order and that he had not realized that the 2005 payment was for a complaint at the domestic level that he had never filed.” The representatives attached a statement made by Mr. Barrera before notary on March 9, 2010, certifying this statement.7 7 Cf. statement in relation to proceedings No. 00.1641 of March 9, 2010, given by José Marcelino Barrera Sucerquia (monitoring compliance file, tome III, folios 1177 and 1178).