the said decision; that is, as of December 21, 2012, taking into account that the rectifications do not affect the State’s compliance with the measures of reparation established therein. B. Criteria for distributing the compensation for loss of earnings and nonpecuniary damage Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 27. The representatives requested clarification of four aspects of paragraph 364 of the Judgment, regarding the distribution of the compensation ordered for loss of earnings of the victims of forced disappearance. In particular, they indicated: 1. Subparagraph (b) of the said paragraph refers “to the date of death” of the victim of forced disappearance; [therefore,] they respectfully ask[ed] the […] Court to clarify whether the date of death should be understood as the date of the forced disappearance recorded in the Diario Militar. 2. Subparagraph (d) refers to the case in which the payment corresponds “to his or her parents or, if they are deceased, to his or her siblings in equal shares,” and they requested clarification about whether this means that the eventual payment corresponds to the parents in equal shares and, if one parent had died, whether the surviving parent should receive the total amount. In this regard, if neither parent is alive, they asked the Court to clarify whether the payment corresponds to the victim’s siblings in equal shares. 3. Subparagraph (e) of the same paragraph, establishes “[…)] the compensation shall be paid to the heirs in accordance with domestic inheritance laws.” Regarding this provision, [they argued that] it is not clear whether this means that, for the distribution of the payment, the criteria established in Guatemala’s civil legislation should be used or whether inheritance proceedings should be initiated pursuant to these laws. [According to the representatives, this] is relevant based on the implications of inheritance proceedings because this would necessarily entail financial costs and time, time that could exceed the time frame established by the Court. […] 4. Regarding the application of the said criteria and for the purposes of the eventual distribution of the payments, [they requested clarification of whether] the next of kin of the disappeared victims who were not identified during the litigation of the case before the Commission and the Court should be considered. In other words, [whether compensation can be delivered to] individuals who were not named as petitioners during the litigation before the Commission or recognized as victims, owing to their family relationship, in the Judgment of the Court. 28. Furthermore, regarding the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the representatives asked, with regard to paragraphs 375 and 385 of the Judgment, “which provision takes precedence,” because they “found a contradiction as regards whether the criteria established by the Court indicating that domestic inheritance laws were a last option should be respected, or whether, based on the content of paragraph 385, recourse should be had to the applicable domestic law immediately.” They underscored that “the criteria established in the Judgment not only avoid the costs entailed by an inheritance proceeding, but more importantly, they also ensure respect for the spirit of financial compensation.” The representatives also expressed “some doubts about the eventual distribution of payments [under the criteria set out in paragraph 364] if the beneficiary was a family member who had died.” In particular, they asked that the Court clarify “whether, when applying subparagraph (b) of paragraph 364, [the next of kin] that the [victims] had at the time of their death should be taken into account, even if these were different from those they had at the time of their [forced] disappearance,” and “whether the disappeared victims’ family members who were not identified during the litigation should be taken into consideration.” 29. The State argued that it was not necessary to interpret the aspects indicated by the representatives, insofar as “most of them are regulated by the Civil Code in force in Guatemala,” because “they refer to doubts about the application of domestic law.” In this regard, it indicated that “it is not opposed to […] the Court interpreting the aspects requested,” but that this “in no way replaces the provisions of the domestic law in force.” Therefore, “the beneficiaries must abide by the domestic procedures if they wish to receive compensation,” because “this is an 7