13 corpus nor could they have prevented the deaths of the victims. 56. The Court considers the codification of the crime of forced disappearance of persons into law in the terms of the 1994 Inter-American Convention to be desirable, but is of the opinion that its non-codification does not prevent the Colombian authorities from pursuing its efforts to investigate and punish the crimes committed to the detriment of the persons referred to in the instant case. 57. Lastly, the Commission claims that the forced disappearance of persons and extrajudicial execution are crimes that cannot be considered to have been committed in exercise of military duties; accordingly, pursuant to Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, such cases could only be tried in the civil courts -although it recognizes the existence of military courts- but "it is the direct responsibility of the Government of Colombia to ensure that the instant case remains within the jurisdiction of the civil courts." In that connection, this Court considers that the question of the competence of military tribunals and their compatibility with international human rights instruments calls for a review of Colombian legislation, which it would be inappropriate to undertake in an incidental manner and at the reparations phase, let alone when it has been submitted by the Commission by way of hypothesis. 58. In conclusion, the Commission asked the Government to acknowledge its responsibility publicly, to apologize to the victims' relatives and to society, to accord special attention and economic support to the college that bears Caballero-Delgado's name, and to conduct a program for the promotion and dissemination of human rights. In connection with that request, this Court considers that its Judgment on the merits in the instant case in which it ruled that Colombia was responsible for violating human rights- and Colombia's recognition of that responsibility reiterated by the Agent at the public hearing (supra 23) constitutes adequate reparation and that it would be improper to order further reparations (El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 15, para. 62), without prejudice to its ordering the Government to continue its efforts to locate the victims' remains and hand them over to their relatives. 59. Costs had been denied in the Judgment on the merits, in which the Court had declared that "the Commission cannot demand that expenses incurred as a result of its own internal work structure be reimbursed through the assessment of costs. The operation of the human rights organs of the American system is funded by the Member States by means of their annual contributions." (Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, para. 70). The same applies in this phase of reparations. XVIII 60. In order to comply with the present Judgment, the State must pay, within six months of its notification, the indemnities awarded to the adult relatives and, if any of them have died, to their heirs. In the case of María del Carmen Santana-Ortiz, the term for payment of the compensation shall start on the date on which the provisions contained in paragraph 52(b) are fulfilled. 61. The Government shall pay the amount of compensation decreed for the minor children by creating, within six months of notification of this Judgment, trust funds in a solvent and sound Colombian banking institution, on the most favorable conditions permitted by banking laws and practice, for each of the minor children, who shall receive