“Carlos Mendoza,” but there are two villagers who were victims of the violations that occurred in this place whose names are “Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa” and “Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro,” and who are, respectively, grandfather and grandson. Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa is fully identified under No. 33 of Annex III of the Judgment in the case of the Ituango Massacres, and the youth “Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro” has claimed the entitlements of “Carlos Mendoza” as his own and presented the documentation required by Fonvivienda to accede to the payment of housing, documentation that the representatives had processed “in the understanding that these were two different persons,” according to paragraph 125.81 of the Judgment. They indicated that, in compliance with the above-mentioned agreement, in Decision No. 1460 of 2010, the State had ordered the payment to Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa and to Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro of 135 monthly minimum wages as members of the group of persons who lost their homes. 49. They indicated that Aura Rosa Mendoza Arroyave, heir of the deceased Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, contacted the representatives on October 13, 2011, to report that neither she nor her siblings agreed that Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro, grandson of their father, Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, should receive the pecuniary compensation ordered in favor of their father, who appears in the Judgment, with that name and also as “Carlos Mendoza”; in other words, the two names refer to the same person. Aura Mendoza Arroyave has indicated verbally and in writing to the representatives that she disagrees with the payment of the pecuniary subsidy to Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro, on the basis that the reparation ordered under No 17 for “Carlos Mendoza” corresponds to her father Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, without prejudice to his entitlement established under No. 33 with his complete name; that her father had two houses in El Aro, and that Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro was a minor in 1997 and does not appear individualized among the children mentioned in the Judgment. 50. The representatives indicated that they did not have the necessary information to determine confidently the full identity of “Carlos Mendoza,” who was not mentioned in the Commission’s application or in the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. They advised the Court that: up until this time, they were unaware that Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa had two houses in the village of El Aro, and that, in 1997, Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro was a minor and that he had been individualized during the proceedings before the Court, and therefore appears among the victims of the violation of Articles 5 and 22 under No. 405 of Annex IV of the Judgment. Bearing in mind that Aura Mendoza Arroyave has been clear in informing them of the liability that will result for the representatives if they do not act with complete care and diligence in this matter, they asked the Court to indicate whether the reparation ordered for “Carlos Mendoza” also refers to Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, or whether the claim made by Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro is pertinent. 51. For her part, Aura Mendoza Arroyave addressed the Court directly and stated that the fact that her father appears with both forms of his name in the Court’s Judgment in the case of El Aro, referring to the same person, cannot be used by his grandson, Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro, to benefit from this, based on the fact that he and her father share the name “Carlos Mendoza.” She alleged that her father had two houses and, therefore, should also receive the other compensation. Regarding the fact that paragraph 125.81 refers twice to a Carlos Mendoza (under No. 17 as Carlos Mendoza and under No. 33 as Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa), Mrs. Mendoza stated that “… there is a case in which the Judgment awarded reparation to the wife and to her husband separately and the two of them benefited with two houses, so that it is not unusual that the Judgment had recognized to [her] father, who owned two properties in El Aro, two pecuniary reparations; one as Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa and the other as Carlos Mendoza. It would be unusual if it had granted them to his grandson, Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro, who does not appear in any way in the facts on which the Judgment is founded.” 19