59. The Court also reiterates and emphasizes that the identification and accreditation of other next of kin does not establish these possible heirs of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar as victims in this case for the purpose of the reparations established in the Judgment. However, the Court points out that this does not preclude the possibility that such persons may file any actions they consider appropriate at the domestic level in relation to the facts of this case. 60. The Court notes that the State argued that it “cannot compensate the beneficiaries unless they prove their right to receive compensation,” meeting “all the requirements established in [domestic] law” to this end. However, at the same time Guatemala indicated that “[i]n the case of the beneficiaries established in the Judgment, they must identify themselves in accordance with the law and, in the case of their heirs because they are deceased, the beneficiaries established in the Judgment must prove their status as heirs pursuant to the provisions of domestic law.” Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it unclear whether the State’s arguments concerning the need to comply with the requirements of domestic law in order to receive the compensation ordered in the Judgment refer to the victims of this case or whether these arguments refer to other possible heirs of the victims, who were not identified and individualized in the Judgment. 61. Notwithstanding the above, the Court finds it relevant to clarify that the determination of the victims who are beneficiaries of the reparations established in the Judgment was made when delivering the Judgment, based on the arguments submitted by those who intervened in the case and the body of evidence provided to the proceedings, in light of the provisions of the American Convention and its underlying principles. Consequently, this determination 22 cannot be modified by the State invoking provisions of domestic law. Therefore, the Court notes that, in the domestic sphere, it is not possible to require additional evidence of their status as victims or next of kin of disappeared victims or beneficiaries of the reparations from those who have been explicitly declared as such by the Court in the Judgment, because this would entail re-examining factual and legal matters that have already been decided in the Judgment. 23 The Court reiterates that all aspects of the obligation to provide reparation (scope, nature, method and identification of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law, and cannot be modified or disregarded by the responsible State invoking domestic legal provisions or difficulties. 24 62. Furthermore, regarding the possible additional next of kin of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar, the Court considers that, despite the Court’s observations in paragraph 57 supra, the State has a certain margin of discretion as regards the other aspects relating to the determination of the other possible next of kin of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar, in order to provide them with their share of the compensation (supra paras. 34 and 35), in their capacity as heirs. The Court takes note of the State’s arguments that it “will be governed by the principles established in domestic law, regardless of the time and expense that undertaking an inheritance proceeding entails for the beneficiaries” (supra para. 29). In this regard, the Court observes that effective compliance with the payments ordered in the Judgment within two years is a State obligation, and the latter cannot abstain from assuming the international responsibility 22 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 61. Also, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 123, and Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 147. 23 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacres v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 159, para. 34. 24 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, supra, para. 44, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra, para. 29. 15