22 Specially, regarding this first aspect, they requested to the Court to, based on the Judgment, authorize the State to proceed with the payment of the compensatory amounts to certain relatives, children or siblings of the victims, since the payment of the compensatory amounts in their favor must be also recognized on an equal footing; b) In the second place, they alleged "the lack of rectification of the compensatory amounts distributed by the Solicitor General's Office.” In this respect, the representatives indicated that there was a mistake in the first payments made when distributing the amounts that corresponded to the families with regard to whom the parents of the victims had already died, since “the Government distributed the moneys that corresponded to the parents of the victims in equal parts among: the siblings of the victim, the wife or partner of the victim and the victim's children.” According to the representatives, this affected the distribution of the victims’ siblings, who should have really inherited from their parents. The representatives pointed out that such alleged mistake was discussed with the government and amended in relation to the payments made by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior and Justice; however, the payment made by means of the Solicitor General’s Office was not amended, therefore they claim that “such mistake needs to be corrected and the moneys needs to be delivered in the proportion that may correspond to the relatives, siblings of the victims.” c) in the third place, they mentioned that a mistake occurred as to the amount of the payment for one of the sisters; therefore, they requested "to complete the payment of the part that corresponds to Mrs. Myriam Mantilla since there is no other reason or ground that could justify or explain the different treatment in the determination of the amount to be paid.” 54. That, in relation to these issues, at the hearing the State mentioned that the Court had already considered the State fulfilled the payment of 90% of the compensatory amounts, which included the payment made by the Solicitor's General Office. Nevertheless, the State asserted that it was at the representatives’ disposal to clarify what may correspond. As to the people who were not acknowledged in the Judgment as beneficiaries, the State request the Court’s requirement to make those additional payments and it mentioned that even though such requirement is untimely, the State shall respond to what the Court decides in that respect. 55. That as to the representatives’ request for the Court to acknowledge Mrs. María Antonia and Leonor Sauza Suárez and Messrs. Diego Andrés Fernández Tejada, Juan de Dios Pineda Bedoya, and Rafael Antonio and Carlos Arturo Riatiga Carvajal as beneficiaries, since they are not expressly included in the Judgment, this Tribunal recalls that in such judgment, the Court included as next-of-kin and beneficiaries of the victims all the people mentioned as such by the Inter-American Commission, according to information provided during the international proceeding, as well as the persons determined based on the evidence furnished to the Tribunal. In this sense, it is not appropriate to reopen the stage on merits and reparations. In addition, the Tribunal has already decided on a request similar to the one filed in this opportunity, in the sense that the Judgment established, in the separate paragraph on beneficiaries, all the people that would be considered as such for the compensatory payments.