3 respective interests, to the siblings of Ernestina and Erlinda in equal parts, who shall have a term of two years to claim the compensation. After this time, if not claimed, it shall be returned to the State in the terms of paragraph 210 of the […] Judgment. Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court his dissenting Opinion. 20. The amount to be paid for damages in favor of María Victoria Cruz Franco, the mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, shall be delivered to her children in equal parts, in the terms of paragraph 211 of the […] Judgment. Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court his dissenting Opinion. 21. The payment of the compensation ordered in favor of the sisters Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, shall be made directly to them. If either of them has passed away, the payment shall be made to their heirs in the terms of paragraph 212 of the […] Judgment. Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court his dissenting Opinion. […] 23. If due to causes that can be attributable to the victims next of kin, the beneficiaries of the compensation are unable to claim said compensation in the term of one year as indicated, the State shall deposit the payment amounts in an account or certificate deposit in a reliable Salvadoran financial institution, in US Dollars, in the terms of paragraph 215 of the […] Judgment. Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court his dissenting Opinion. […] 25. It shall oversee for the full compliance of this Judgment, and shall deem the instant case as concluded once the State has fully implemented all of the provisions in this Judgment. Within one year of notification of this judgment, the State shall provide the Court with a report on the measures taken in compliance with the terms of paragraph 217 of the […] Judgment. Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court his dissenting Opinion. […] 2. On March 29, 2005, the Court notified the parties involved about the Judgment entered on the merits, reparations and costs. II COURT JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION 3. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that [The] judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. Pursuant to the aforementioned article, the Court is competent to interpret its rulings, and in order to examine the request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment (article 59(3) of the Rules). On this occasion, the Court is composed of the judges who entered the