pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had suffered, because “the latter [had] not been specifically identified in the Judgment.” 40. Bolivia also advised that, in communications issued on September 16, 2011, and publications made in the press on September 22, 25 and 28 that year, Martha Castro Mendoza and Rebeca, Tito and Raquel Ibsen Castro were advised that the said payment authorizations had been issued in their favor, and also of “the opening of a bank account to deposit the sums established in favor of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña.” In this regard, the State asserted that “despite [its] efforts to comply [with this measures of reparation], it was the beneficiaries who refused to collect their money within the established time frame.” Thus, according to the State, the payment authorizations issued by the Central Bank of Bolivia in the name of Martha Castro Mendoza, Rebeca, Tito and Raquel Ibsen Castro for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs expenses were redeemed on December 6, 2011. 41. Furthermore, regarding the compensation corresponding to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the State indicated that once their status of the beneficiaries as heirs had been accredited, using domestic law as a parameter as decided by the Inter-American Court, they were allowed to collect the corresponding amounts. In this regard, it indicated that, regarding the compensation allocated to the heirs of José Luis Ibsen Peña, on March 16, 2012, payment was made to Martha Castro Mendoza, Rebeca Ibsen Castro and Raquel Ibsen Castro and, on March 20, 2012, Tito Ibsen was paid. Moreover, regarding the compensation assigned to the heirs of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, the State advised that, on July 10, 11 and 17, 2012, the payments were made to Tito Ibsen Castro, to Martha Castro and Raquel Ibsen Castro, and to Rebeca Ibsen Castro, respectively. Lastly, and based on the above, the State indicated that it had “proceeded to make full payment of the compensation in favor of Martha Castro Mendoza, [and of] Rebeca, Raquel and Tito Ibsen Castro.” 42. The representatives advised that the State had paid the corresponding compensation “in three partial payments and on different dates, outside the one-year time frame established by the Court, and without taking into account costs, fines and interests,” which “result[ed] in a reduction in the amount of compensation owing to administrative costs, transport, travel, official procedures, and accommodation, among other expenses, as well as [for] the bank transfers [that] involve a deduction for the ITF [tax on financial transactions] charges.” In addition, they asserted that “collecting the payment was delayed and difficult, because, for over six months, certain officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued erroneously that the Judgment made […] a legal differentiation between the terms ‘heirs’ and ‘beneficiaries,’” casting doubts on the relationship of the victims’ next of kin and obstructing the payment of the compensation. According to the representatives, the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the said Ministry claimed that the victims should file “legal actions” in order to be declared heirs of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas. They also advised that “an administrative proceeding” had been opened in order to identify the heirs of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Peña, which delayed “the payment of the compensation for more than eighteen months.” In addition they indicated that, during this procedure, “information was requested from the National Civil Registry Service on birth, marriage or other certificates with the names Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña,” which constituted “re-victimization” for the members of the Ibsen family. Lastly, the representatives affirmed that the publications made by the State in the newspapers, “La Razón” and “El Deber,” inviting anyone who was “related by blood and/or by marriage” to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas to come forward to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented an imminent risk for the victims, because they could have been subjected to abuse. 14