42. With regard to the representatives’ arguments regarding the family members of the victims who are not included in the Judgment, this Court reiterates the comments made in the Order of July 8, 2009, that “it is not appropriate to reopen the stage on merits and reparations,” which included as family members and beneficiaries of the victims those individuals indicated as such by the Inter-American Commission, based on the information provided during the international proceeding, as well as those identified based on the evidence provided to the Court and included in the relevant chapter on beneficiaries to receive compensation. The Court recalls that the Judgment only left open the possibility that the family members of three of the victims could be subsequently identified, since the Court did not have the necessary information to identify them at the time when the Judgment was issued. Once again, the Court points out that the family members identified by the representatives are not related to these three victims. Consequently, the Court takes note that these persons have approached the competent Colombian authorities to demand what they believe to be their rights in relation to the victims in this case, but advises that it will not monitor these proceedings or their results in the context of monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 43. Furthermore, the Court recalls that in its last Order it established that “before considering that this point has been satisfied, […] it deem[ed] it pertinent to require detailed information” regarding: (i) the alleged incorrect distribution of the indemnities distributed by the Attorney General’s Office in the event of the death of some of the beneficiaries, and (ii) an alleged error in the payment made to Mrs. Myriam Mantilla Sánchez. In this regard, the Court notes that neither the State nor the representatives have provided information on this situation. However, contrary to the State’s assertion, its obligation to report to the Court on this matter did not depend on the representatives submitting additional observations related to this measure of reparation. According to the aforementioned Order, the State should review the payment made to Mrs. Myriam Mantilla Sánchez and, if appropriate, grant her the amount due. Otherwise it should provide the Court with a relevant explanation and submit the documents supporting compliance with the payment ordered in the Judgment, taking into account the observations already presented by the representatives on the matter, prior to the Order of July 200924. Likewise, with regard to the compensation paid by the Attorney General’s Office, it is up to the State to ascertain and inform the Court whether the payments distributed by that body are consistent with the criteria and terms established in paragraphs 230 and 231 of the Judgment. 44. In view of the foregoing, the Court reiterates that this point is still pending compliance and considers it necessary that the State submit detailed and complete information on the aspects queried or noted by the representatives in relation to the payments made by the Attorney General’s Office and the payment made to Mrs. Myriam Mantilla Sánchez, which are pending evaluation and appraisal by this Court. Likewise, taking into account the comments made by the State, the Court considers it appropriate to require the representatives, in presenting their observations to the State’s report (infra Operative paragraph 3), to refer in detail to the two aforementioned matters pending evaluation by the Court. In particular, the Court requests that the representatives indicate whether the errors mentioned in the payment of the indemnities have been corrected or, if applicable, how these could be corrected and the actions required to remedy the situation. 24 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, considering paragraph 58. 15