4 8. That the Court considers that the State has complied with the publication in the Official Newspaper and in a newspaper of ample national circulation. 9. That the Tribunal considers that the placement of a copy of the Judgment on the Army’s general information bulletin board during a two-week period is enough to comply with the purpose of the fifth operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). * * * 10. That the State proposed a modality of alternative compliance to fulfill its obligation of payment of the compensations set by the Tribunal for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses, due “to the budget crisis originated in the disasters caused by Hurricane Stan.” Thus, the State offered “three successive payments corresponding to 33.33% of the total amount in the months of December of […] 2005, 2006, and 2007.” 11. That one part of the beneficiaries accepted this form of payment, and has received up to now two of the three payments proposed by the State, each one equal to 33.33% of the total. That the beneficiaries Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, Jorge Carpio Arrivillaga, Rodrigo Carpio Arrivillaga, Karen Fischer, Daniela Carpio Fischer, Rodrigo Carpio Fischer, and Ricardo San Pedro Suárez “stated that they did not accept the terms of the payment proposal” made by the State, and requested that the total payment of the compensations be made effective in the first quarter of the year 2006. However, they received a first payment, as an advance payment, in January 2006 and a second similar payment in December 2006. 12. That based on the above, the Court observes that the State has complied partially with the sixth and seventh operative paragraphs of the Judgment issued in the present case (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). 13. That the State must pay all the beneficiaries the corresponding interests on loan arrears, pursuant to the thirteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment issued in this case, for the delay in payment of the compensations set by the Court, beyond the term established by the latter in the ninth operative paragraph of the mentioned Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). 14. That according to the tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1), the State should have deposited the compensation ordered in favor of the beneficiaries that are minors in a banking investment to their name. That from the information provided, it can be concluded that the State handed said payments over to the legal representatives of the minors, who promised to deposit the corresponding amounts in each of their children’s accounts. That this modality does not correspond to that established by this Tribunal. That the Court does not have information on whether the legal representatives of the minors in fact made the deposit in favor of the latter. That, therefore, what corresponds is to request that the representatives of the victims inform if the deposits were made, and that they forward the corresponding support documents. That the State must make the final payment of the compensations corresponding to the minors pursuant to that stated in the tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment. * * *