52. In addition, in December 2011, Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro addressed the Court and stated that, in Annex III, Carlos Mendoza Rúa and Carlos Mendoza, grandfather and grandson, respectively, were individualized, ordering that the former be compensated for the loss of housing, livestock and mules, and the latter as a victim for the loss of the home only; facts mentioned by the Court. He indicated that “Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, deceased, was compensated by the State in compliance with the financial reparations for the nonpecuniary damage suffered by the victim, established in the Judgment, and collected by his wife and [he,] Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro, who appeared in the Judgment as Carlos Mendoza, also received separately the compensation [for non-pecuniary damage] by Decision No. 5898 of December 28, 2007, issued by the Ministry of Defense.” He also stated that he had been individualized in Annex III of the Judgment and that he had received his compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the Decision of December 28, 2007. He asked that the Court clarify that the names refer to two different victims and that the way is cleared for the compensation that was approved. 53. In this regard, the State indicated that, while implementing compliance with the measure of reparation relating to the payment of the pecuniary subsidy for housing to the beneficiaries indicated in Annex III of the Judgment, a confusion had arisen among the members of one family as to the true identity of the beneficiary “Carlos Mendoza,” as described by the representatives in their brief. The State was not totally clear about the identity of the beneficiary “Carlos Mendoza,” taking into account that neither the Commission’s application, nor the brief of the representatives, nor the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility refers to this individual. In addition, it indicated that it considered that “according to the information provided by the representatives, and revealed by them in the processing of the case before the Court, the youth Mendoza Garro would not be the person indicated by the Court as “Carlos Mendoza,” as victim of the violation of the right to property, taking into account that, at the time of the events, he was a minor; however, for the sake of discussion, if he had been the owner of a piece of property at the time of the events, this situation was not determined during the said proceedings, a situation contrary to that of his father and his grandfather who were beneficiaries of the measure to which Annex III of the Judgment refers.” 54. Regarding the interpretation of the next of kin of Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, that they would be beneficiaries of the measure ordered under No. 17 for Carlos Mendoza, the State indicated that, without prejudice to the right that corresponds to them under No. 33 of Annex III of the Judgment in the case of the Ituango Massacres, in which he is referred to with his complete name, based on the fact that: (i) Mr. Mendoza Rúa had two houses in El Aro, and (ii) the youth Mendoza Garro was a minor at the time of the events, namely 1997, this interpretation is not viable, because during the litigation before the Court, it was never proved that Mr. Mendoza Rúa really owned two houses and, in particular, that both of them were affected by the regrettable events of El Aro, so that the State asked the Court to reject the said claim based on the lack of evidence to substantiate it, because, to the contrary, it would lead to unjust enrichment. Lastly, the State indicated that it would abstain from making the payment of the pecuniary subsidy corresponding to ‘Carlos Mendoza’ until the Court, based on the background material of the litigation of the case, was able to elucidate who the judgment refers to when it mentions that individual who is identified as a beneficiary in Annex III of the Judgment. 55. The Inter-American Commission stated that there is “insufficient information to make more conclusive observations on whether “Carlos Mendoza” is the same person as “Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa” and that it “had no additional evidence that would allow [it] to make more detailed observations.” Furthermore, it indicated that the only person identified as a 20