intestate succession of Andrea Radilla Martínez.” The State considered that this would “avoid the need for the victims to initiate a procedure for the declaration of absence and presumption of death, which in the State’s view is a disproportionate burden to the victims,” for which reason the Court’s ruling was “of the utmost importance because without its approval the money could not be handed over to the persons mentioned.” Accordingly, it requested that once the bills of deposit have been withdrawn, the Court declare that Operative Paragraph 17 of the Judgment has been fulfilled. B. Observations of the representatives 8. Initially, the representatives had informed the Court that Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco’s next of kin had accepted the payment ordered by the Court, and had asked the State to “withdraw” the deposit and hand over the checks directly to them, indicating that the deposit made before a judge is contrary to the Court’s provisions since “for the beneficiary victims and heirs it implies the burden of undertaking disproportionate and unnecessary judicial procedures, which not only seriously complicate compliance with the Judgment, but also imply their re-victimization,” specifically with regard to the [heirs] of Mr. Radilla Pacheco.” The representatives emphasized that they had no objection to the amounts awarded in favor of Mr. Radilla Pacheco being deposited in a banking institution, but to their subsequent deposit before a judge, even though the heirs, through their representatives, had already informed the State of their decision to directly receive the amounts due. They pointed out that in order for Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s heirs to receive the corresponding amounts they would need to initiate a voluntary jurisdiction proceeding, under domestic legislation, and also obtain a legal declaration of presumption of death of Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, all of which was burdensome. In that regard, they reported that on June 11, 2012 the aforementioned Tenth District Court for Civil Matters had ruled that in order to hand over the amounts corresponding to Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s “claimants” further information is required for the “‘purpose of having additional elements and so as not to incur in any liability on the part of [that] federal court.’” Briefly, the representatives indicated that it is now up to a judge to rule on the payment of this compensation. Therefore, they explained that they were “echoing the petition made by the State” in requesting a ruling from the Court so that the competent judicial authority may take this into account for the prompt payment of the bill of deposit for all the indemnities that are pending. 9. Regarding Tita and Rosendo Radilla Martínez, victims in the instant case and direct beneficiaries of the indemnities ordered in the Judgment, the representatives stated that “there is no dispute whatsoever, since each one can directly approach the court to claim their respective checks.” Likewise, regarding Mrs. Andrea Radilla Martínez, the representatives stated that her situation is based on the presumption of death of the beneficiary prior to payment of the compensation, and therefore her heirs are in a position to claim the respective funds in accordance with the civil law of the State of Guerrero. 10. Finally, the representatives indicated, on the one hand, that on August 12 and 16, 2011, several national daily newspapers reported that the State had proceeded to deposit before a judge the amounts awarded as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in the Judgment. They stated that these reports “describe specific amounts, beneficiaries and the date of the deposit, as well as the court before which the funds were deposited.” The 4