the diffusion of the judgment, payment of compensations to several people, and the engraving of names on the monument known as “The eye that cries”. 29. During the international trial the State admitted facts it was charged with and accepted the international responsibility attributed to it. Now the matter is that said acknowledgment must transcend to the domestic realm, as is characteristic of the international human rights protection system. The Court has not specified who must make the acknowledgment, nor has it gone into details in what specific media, programs, and hours the parts of the judgment must be broadcasted. The general and special statements regarding these matters must be associated with the obtainment of the objective sought with these measures, linked to the current and future protection of human rights. There is, therefore, a connection of those with the purpose they seek to serve and with the reasonable manner in which it may be reached. 30. As much can be said about the engraving of the names on a plaza or monument created for that purpose. When the Commission and the common intervener requested a measure of this nature, the State mentioned that “a monument (called the Eye that Cries) has already been erected in a public place of the capital in favor of all the victims of the conflict;” it is “a public place in the capital of the Republic that is the object of continuous acts of commemoration.” The Court took note of the express suggestion. Then clarifications were presented regarding the availability of that place. Considering these circumstances, the judgment of interpretation mentions the possibility that the names be included in a monument or in the name of a plaza within the territorial circumscription where “The Eye that Cries” is located. This reference refers to the site of the engraving of the names, not the measure itself. 31. In what refers to the manner in which payment of compensations must be made, the Court has followed the criterion adopted in its constant jurisprudence when amounts of money must be delivered to adults. It cannot express what it anticipates will happen, which would be speculations or conjectures, regarding the destination the individual beneficiaries of the compensation may give the amounts received. Of course these resources, as any others, must have a legal destination. The Inter-American Court lacks the authority and the instruments to supervise this destination and prevent the application of goods to illegal objectives. The supervising duties regarding the legitimacy of economic movements, in general, are within the realm of the State’s powers and possibilities, pursuant to its constitutional authorities and observing the corresponding guarantees. 32. With regard to the existence of debts of the beneficiaries of the compensations with regard to third parties, whether they are people of public or private law, the decision of the Court does not exclude nor could it exclude the possibility, subject to domestic law, that creditors exercise the actions acknowledged to them by law, in the terms of the due process of law. The judgment does not deprive them of this right. What the Court seeks to avoid, as can be concluded from its jurisprudence –and of the specific ruling in the present case--, is the evasion of compliance of a compensatory decision through tax burdens that deprive the beneficiary of the compensation to which he is entitled. 33. I conclude my opinion with a comment on the request for a public hearing in these proceedings, which the majority of the members of the Court –among them myself—did not endorse. In this sense, it is necessary to take into account the grounds that justify the celebration of a public hearing for the effects of the interpretation of a judgment, not only in what refers to the present case, but in general terms, as a 6