8 amount set by the Court. Regarding payment of the amount due to Rosario Galeano, Juan Galeano, Albino Cajbón and Catalina Galeano, the State reported that such persons had not claimed payment. Furthermore, it advised the Court that Crecencio, Clara, Remigia, Gabino, Hilarión and Rigoberto Galeano-Sical, who had originally received payment, acknowledged that they had been mistaken for the relevant victims and agreed that, upon reimbursement of the amounts paid them to the State, their cases will be submitted to the National Compensation Program in order that they may be examined by said entity (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). 23. That, as regards to the failure to submit copies of the release documents for payment of the second installment to Rosario Galeano, Juan Galeano, Albino Cajbón, Hilario Galeano, Catalina Galeano, and Silvestre Galeano –which copies the Court had asked for through the Order of November 28, 2007–, the representatives stated that six members of the Galeano-Sical family had been paid the first installment under mistaken identities, but that they believed that the State (acting through COPREDH) had reached an agreement with said persons on account of the mistake made (supra Having Seen clause. 4). 24. That, according to the payment release records provided by the State, the Court has verified that the full amount set in the Judgment, plus interest, was settled as a single payment to Hilario and Silvestre Galeano. * * * 25. That, as regards to the failure to provide a copy of the release document for payment of the second installment to Lucía Raxcacó-Sesám, on April 11, 2008, the State expressed that Mr. Simeón Galeano-Pirir had been advised, in his capacity as legal representative of the minor children of Mrs. Raxcacó-Sesám, named Hugo Leonel Galeano-Raxcacó and Irma Johann Galeano-Raxcacó, that he was required to start an intestate succession proceeding in order that the minors could be declared the legal heirs of Mrs. Raxcacó-Sesám (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). 26. That, as regards to non-payment of the second and third installments to Mrs. Lucía Raxcacó-Sesám, the representatives argued that, since she had passed away, it was necessary for the State to indicate whether the next of kin have come forward to assert their claim, and to report on the current situation (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). 27. That, based on the information submitted by the parties, the Court finds it necessary for both the State and the representatives to accurately report on the procedural status of Lucía Raxcacó-Sesám’s intestate succession and payment to her heirs. * * * 28. That, as regards to the failure to provide a copy of the release document for payment of the first installment to Zoila, Pedro and Adolfo and/or Rodolfo SotoMartínez, in its report submitted on April 11, 2008, the State explained that the lady had received “[…] as agent for her children Zoila, Pedro and Adolfo and/or Rodolfo SotoMartínez, the amount of the first installment, as per document No. 333, dated August