23 56. That the State initially informed that up to May 2008, 33 people acknowledged in the Judgment had made themselves present at the offices of Banco Agrario de Colombia to withdraw their compensations, and that they appeared between May 12 and 19, 2008. It later stated that by the end of June 2008, 169 beneficiaries had requested payment of the compensations. During the hearing, the State mentioned it had paid 373 beneficiaries and it requested that the Court declare partial compliance with the obligation of payment of the compensations. In its last report it stated that on February 11, 2009 the representatives of the beneficiaries met with representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice and of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “in attention to its interest to comply with the reparation measures in the best way possible.” There they agreed to hold as many meetings as necessary to fulfill that purpose. 57. That regarding the next of kin for whom official documents have not been provided or in those cases in which the documents provided do not prove the relationship, the State informed that, as indicated in paragraph 237 of the Judgment, on February 20, 2008 the representatives forwarded, along with the request for payment, the documents and powers as beneficiaries of the people they consider have a right to the compensation and that said information could be found at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice for its study and decision. During the hearing the State pointed out that said Ministry had set forth actions of an administrative nature tending to acknowledge new beneficiaries. Likewise, it indicated that documents were never requested in order to prove situations that had already been objected in the proceedings before the Inter-American System and that, with regard to the new beneficiaries, the State did require the documents that would prove said condition, reason for which up to the date of the hearing around 90 people had provided the documents, of which only 37 were acknowledged as beneficiaries, since the rest did not comply with the requirements necessary to obtain that condition. 58. That the representatives confirmed several aspects of the content of Order No. 825 of April 3, 2008, as well as the elaboration of regulations establishing the conditions and requirements of payment, which only ordered “the payment of the compensations corresponding to the non-pecuniary damages caused to the next of kin of the victims” and that “payments corresponding to the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages of the victims disappeared and executed [were] pending,” in the measure that they were in the investigation phase with regard to the people that do not appear in the Judgment. They stated that said order was notified to them within the framework of a meeting held with officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice on May 8, 2008. At the hearing, they stated that at the end of 2006, once the Judgment of interpretation had been notified, they requested a meeting with the State in order for the latter to inform them what entity would be in charge of making the payment, but several months later they found out that it would be the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice. Likewise, they indicated that the State may reach interpretations not necessarily shared by them, but this would not allow the State to understand in good faith that the requirements for payment were not being fulfilled, since there were documents of the conversations held and the letters from the beneficiaries stating they wanted to be represented. On the other hand, they expressed that “the date on which the State ordered payment was not December 27, 2007 but in May 2008, after an order of April 30, that is more than one month after they had settled the collection of the compensation as representatives of the victims.” 59. That the Commission stated at the hearing that no domestic administrative procedure whatsoever is necessary and that, even though the domestic legislation of