10 situations and conditions that were already demonstrated before a judicial body recognized by the State itself, such as the Court, unless one of the beneficiaries of the compensations with a legitimate interest challenges whether they lived together at the time of the facts, in which case the State should require proof of said fact, by means of a [...] contested and public procedure.” Pleadings of the Commission 31. Regarding to the pleadings of the State regarding distribution of the compensations when there is a wife and a common-law spouse of the same victim, the Commission deemed that said pleading “does not raise a doubt regarding the scope of the Judgment, in whose paragraph 240(a) the Court clearly established that the person entitled to the compensation ordered would be the wife or permanent common-law spouse of the victim, at the time of deprivation of life or disappearance of the victim.” Regarding to the second question by the State regarding this point, the Commission deemed that “additional evidence cannot be required under domestic venue of persons who have already been explicitly declared by the Court [to be] victims or beneficiaries of the reparations ordered in the adjudicatory proceeding [in] which they have proven their right.” Therefore, “the request for interpretation in this section [...] is unnecessary and out of order.” Considerations of the Court 32. The Court notes that the questions of the State refer to a hypothetical situation in which wives and common-law spouses of one or several of the 43 persons deprived of their lives or missing, not included in subparagraph a) of paragraph 240 of the Judgment, claim reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages regarding the persons deprived of their lives or missing. Said questions also refer to whether in said hypothetical situation it is necessary to prove that they lived with the victim at the time of his death or disappearance, for them to be beneficiaries of the compensations, which according to the State is required under the Colombian domestic legal system. 33. Regarding to the first question by the State, in case other wives and common-law spouses not included in the Judgment file claims before the national authorities for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages regarding to those 43 victims, both would be beneficiaries when they prove said condition. In this situation, 50% of the respective compensation must be distributed in equal parts between both persons, in the same manner set forth in subparagraph a) of paragraph 240 of the aforementioned Judgment. 34. Regarding to the second query by the State, the Court notes that establishment of the beneficiaries of the reparations, as part of the obligation to make reparations, was already decided in the Judgment, based on the criteria set forth therein and the evidence offered in the proceeding, in light of the provisions of the American Convention and its underlying principles. In other words, said decision cannot be modified by the State invoking its domestic legal provisions. In view of this, the Court agrees with the reasoning of the representatives and of the Commission, that it is not possible to require additional evidence, under domestic venue, to established that persons whom the Court explicitly found to be victims or beneficiaries of reparations are in fact victims or beneficiaries, as this would reopen factual and legal matters that were already decided in the Judgment. On the other