judgment. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems that the State must take, within a reasonable term, and in coordination with the victims and their representatives, all the necessary actions, as soon as possible, to implement the aforementioned measures pending compliance. III. Duty to pay the amounts established as compensation for nonpecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and legal expenses (eighteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 18. In the report received by the Court on February 28, 2012, the State expressed that in the months of November and December 2011, it made the corresponding payments of the amounts for compensation of non-pecuniary damage to 15 persons who were declared victims in the judgment8. It explained that, in some cases, it made some of the payments directly to the victims or their agents and, in other cases, to their heirs. Afterwards, in its report of May 4, 2012, it indicated that it made the payments corresponding to the compensatory amounts ordered in favor of three more victims.9 19. Moreover, according to information forwarded on February 28 and May 4, 2012, the State indicated that it has been not possible to contact seven victims10; that, in relation to another victim, it is taking some actions11, and that in relation to the 13 victims who died, "their relatives must initiate the probate proceeding".12 20. Furthermore, in relation to the aforementioned 13 deceased victims, and in relation to those victims that the State indicated that it was not possible to contact, the representatives expressed that "it has been difficult to locate some of the heirs [...] and some of the beneficiaries” and, given that the representatives “have very limited resources to make long trips through the interior of the country in order to locate these persons [...] they request the State to collaborate with them in order to, through its agencies and registries, be able to gather the missing information". They further alleged that some relatives of the deceased victims are facing various 8 Said persons are: Juan de Dios Cabrera Ruano, Oscar Adelso Antonio Jiménez, Rodrígo Mayen Ramírez ,Dionicio Campos Rodríguez (in the judgment, his name was written as “Dionisio”), José Ramiro Gómez Hernández, Israel Portillo Pérez, Ladislao Jiménez Pernillo, Mirna Elizabeth Aldana Canan, Felipa de Jesús Medrano Pérez, Valeria Garcia, Luz Castillo Flores (in the judgment, her name was written as “Luz Flores”), Leonarda Falla Sazo (in the judgment, her last name was written as “Saso Hernández”), María Luisa Corado, Inés Otilio Jiménez Pernillo and Abelina Flores. 9 Said victims are: Toribia Ruano Castillo, María Dolores Romero Ramírez, and Andrés Rivas. 10 Namely: Ever Ismael Antonio Coto, Héctor Coto, Santos Osorio Lique, Jorge Granados Cardona, María Vicenta Moral Solís, Luciana Cabrera Galeano and María Menegilda Marroquín Miranda (indicated in the State’s report of February 28, 2012, as “María Meregilda Marroquin Miranda”) . 11 The victim is Edvin Saul Romero García (his name was indicated as such in the State's report of February 28, 2012; in the judgment, his name was indicated as "Edwin Saúl Romero Garcia"). The State mentioned that it is waiting for his attorneys to present "the power of attorney as required by the law" 12 According to the information presented by the State, said victims are the following persons: Rafael Barrientos Mazariegos, Ángel Cermeño Pineda, Agusto Mayen Ramírez (his name was indicated as such in the State’s Report; in the judgment, his name was indicated as “Augusto Mayen Ramirez”), Marcelino Deras Tejada, Olegario Rodríguez Tepec, Teodoro Jiménez Pernillo, Enriqueta González Gómez (her name was indicated as such in the State's Report; in the judgment, her name was indicated as "Enriqueta Gonzalez G. de Martínez”), Eugenia Jiménez Pineda, Felicita Lima Ayala, Sara Pérez López, Telma Guadalupe Aldana Canan, Tomasa Galicia González and Nicolasa Pérez Méndez. 6