5 17. Consequently, in the seventeenth operative paragraph the Court ordered that [t]he State must pay […] Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa, […], within a one-year term, the amounts set in paragraph 220 of the Judgment, as compensation for non-pecuniary damages, in the terms of paragraphs 219, 246 through 248 and 250 through 252 of the same. 18. That is, as observed by the Commission, the Judgment is clear when it determined the condition of victim and injured party of Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa. In said terms, it is equally clear that the omission of her name in paragraphs 206 (i) and 220 of the Judgment is a material error that does not affect the determinations stated. Therefore, it must be clarified that Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa must be understood as included in the previously mentioned paragraphs, as beneficiary of the compensation set for non-pecuniary damages in favor of the sisters or brothers of the victims missing or killed (US$ 20.000,00 – twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America). 19. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the Tribunal has clarified the scope of that stated in paragraphs 206(i) and 220, in relation with paragraphs 80(106) and 129 and the fifth and seventeenth operative paragraphs of its Judgment of November 29, 2006 on merits, reparations, and costs. V REGARDING THE SURNAMES OF MRS. CARMEN OYAGUE VELAZCO 20. The representatives stated that, even though they initially stated that “the aunt of Dora Oyague Fierro was Mrs. Carmen Oyague Velasco” in their brief of pleadings and motions, in a subsequent brief in which they presented documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the Court, they mentioned that the full name of said person was Carmen Antonia Oyague Velazco de Huaman; that the Court in its judgment on every occasion on which it refers to her calls her Carmen Oyague Velazco; that even when this “is correct and corresponds to her identity, her full name also includes her husband’s surname (de Huaman), which is the one that figures in her national identification document and in the affidavit presented in the proceedings before the Court.” They consider it important that the Court clarify this matter and add said person’s married name, since this is relevant for the effects of compliance by the State of the measures of reparation established in the Judgment, since the error mentioned could make the payment due to her for non-pecuniary damages difficult, since state officials rigorously verify the coincidence with the complete name that appears in the national identification document, especially when dealing with married women. 21. The State expressed that “according to the National Identification and Marital Status Registry (RENIEC), Mrs. Carmen Antonia Oyague Velazco de Huamán […] is registered in the Data Base of Citizens of said body” and that “it does not know of any juridical reason to present opposition to the acknowledgment of [said individual] as a next of kin […] of the […] victim […] by the […] Court.” Likewise, the State presented simple copies of citizenship data sheets from the RENIEC for this person. 22. The Commission considered that “even when the scope and content of the stated in the [J]udgment with regard to Mrs. Carmen Oyague Velazco is clear, it is useful to specify her last name in the manner requested in order to avoid any doubt regarding payment of the compensation ordered by the Court [and that s]aid precision may be done through a material correction of the [J]udgment, or through the criteria of usefulness that the Tribunal has employed on other occasions.”