-10addition, the Court has observed that some difficulties have arisen concerning payment to the permanent companion of the victim Carlos Arturo Riatiga Carvajal (supra Having seen paragraph 4). According to the communication that the representatives sent to the State, this victim’s permanent companion is “Rosmira Arias Ortega.” Given that the judgment delivered by this Court indicated that the name of the permanent companion of Carlos Arturo Riatiga Carvajal was “Luz Marina (o María) Arias Ortega,”5 this Court considers that the representatives and the State should indicate whether there is any dispute on this matter. (h) That it deposit the compensation ordered in favor of the beneficiaries who are minors in a banking investment in their names in a reputable Colombian banking institution, in United States dollars, within one year, and in the most favorable financial conditions allowed by legislation and banking practice, while they are minors (twenty-second operative paragraph and paragraph 290 of the judgment). The Court notes that no specific information on this matter has been included in the two reports submitted by the State during the phase of monitoring compliance with judgment;6 nor did the representative refer to it in their observations on the State’s report of May 24, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 6); and (i) That it adopt the necessary measures to locate the next of kin of Juan Bautista and Huber Pérez (whose second surname is possibly Castaño) and deliver the corresponding reparations. To this end, among other measures, Colombia must broadcast on a radio station and a television channel and publish in a newspaper, all with national coverage, an announcement indicating that it is trying to locate the next of kin of these victims to provide them with a reparation in relation to the facts of this case (paragraph 233 of the judgment). The Court notes that the State did not refer to this matter in its report of May 24, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 3); nor did the representatives (supra Having seen paragraph 6). Nevertheless, the Court observes that resolutions issued on February 22 and 24, 2006, by the Ministries of National Defense, the Interior, and Justice, copies of which were provided by the State as appendixes to its report, state that “after the announcements ordered in the judgment to identify the next of kin of the victims JUAN BAUTISTA and HUBER PEREZ had been made, no one came forward proving that they were the legitimate successors. Consequently, the compensation corresponding to the victim will be recognized, and the State will apply the provisions contained in the twenty-first operative paragraph of the judgment” of the Court. In this regard, the Court considers that the State must report upon its compliance with this element and, in particular, present detailed information on how the announcements ordered in paragraph 233 of the judgment were publicized; and 12. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of July 5, 2004, when it has received the relevant information about the measures pending compliance. * * 5 * Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 108(b). 6 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, considering paragraph 10(h).