accordance with the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to which Mexico has been a Party since April 9, 2002 (supra Considering paragraph 2), and with the Judgment issued in this case, Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco is forcibly disappeared, and his death cannot be presumed given that for this the State must, in turn, prove that situation, as established in the Judgment. “Forced disappearance” and “death” are two juridical situations distinct from each other which, in light of International Human Rights Law, cannot be treated on an equal footing or on the basis of the same assumptions and do not necessarily generate the same legal consequences. 17. In its Judgment, the Inter-American Court ordered that the compensation corresponding to Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco be distributed among his heirs. Therefore, the Mexican State must comply fully with this obligation. Article 68 of the American Convention establishes that States must comply with the rulings of the Inter-American Court in any case to which they are parties. Likewise, in the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1, paragraph 339) it was also established that the Judiciary must exercise a “control of conventionality” ex officio between domestic regulations and the American Convention, within the framework of its respective jurisdictions and of the relevant procedural regulations. In this regard, the Judiciary must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation of the InterAmerican Court as the final interpreter of the American Convention. All this was also established by the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico when it ruled on the Judgment of this Court in File 912/2010, a decision contained in the file on this case. 18. Bearing in mind the foregoing, and given that the Judgment states that the amounts payable in compensation for the damage suffered by Mr. Radilla Pacheco must be distributed in equal parts among his heirs (supra Having Seen 1, paragraph 387), and given that there is no dispute between the State and the representatives as to who Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s beneficiaries are, the State, through the competent authority, must immediately proceed to pay those amounts, either directly to the beneficiaries or through their chosen representative. This does not preclude continuing with the relevant domestic proceedings, provided that these do not impose a disproportionate burden on the beneficiaries. 19. The Court further notes that neither the representatives nor the State submitted information concerning payment of the amount ordered for costs and expenses, as reiterated in the Order of May 19, 2011 (supra Having Seen 1, Considering paragraph 56). The Court once again requests the presentation of that information. 20. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that compliance is pending with the obligation of pay the amounts set for compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages, and for reimbursement of costs and expenses (Operative paragraph 17 of the Judgment). 21. Finally, regarding the representatives’ request that the State abstain from making public the details of the compensation payment, from the information submitted, the Court cannot presume that the publication of the alleged payment of the compensation in national newspapers was made at the request of the State itself. Likewise, the Court considers it pertinent to recall that the Judgment issued in this case, together with the procedure to monitor its fulfillment, are public. As to the representatives’ request that the Court urge the State to “reconsider the possibility of recognizing and extending the financial compensation to all of Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s heirs in the adoption of the reparation measures,” the Court recalls that although the Judgment, having regard to the State’s acknowledgement of 7