9 appear before the competent authorities of the State within twenty-four months of when this Judgment is issued and supply the official information required to identify them and prove their kinship.” 27. In other words, it is clear that the listing of those 43 victims in said Appendix II of the Judgment was not restrictive and it did not preclude the right of any other next of kin of requesting the respective compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages before the competent national authorities, insofar as they do so under the conditions set forth. This, of course, applies to the persons mentioned by the representatives in their request for interpretation, as well as to any other persons who prove their right under said conditions. 28. The other aspects raised by the representatives can be addressed during the stage of oversight of compliance with the Judgment, when appropriate. VI CRITERIA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMPENSATIONS Pleadings of the State 29. Regarding to distribution of the compensations ordered in the Judgment, the State asked the Court to clarify paragraph 240 subparagraph a) of that Judgment regarding distribution of the compensations among the next of kin of the persons missing or deprived of their lives. In this regard, it asked the following specific questions: 1) 2) If there is a wife or husband and a permanent common-law spouse [of] one of the victims (other than those specifically identified at the end of said subparagraph), which of those two persons is the beneficiary of the compensation? [,and] To be a beneficiary of the compensations, is it necessary to prove that the person lived with the victim at the time of death? This question is raised because under the domestic legal system it is necessary to prove that they lived together. The above taking into account the provisions of Article 68 of the [Convention]. Pleadings of the representatives 30. Regarding to the clarification requested by the State regarding distribution of the compensations ordered in the Judgment, the representatives deemed that: a) b) if there is another victim simultaneously with a wife and a permanent common-law spouse, it is necessary to apply the same criterion set forth by the Court regarding to the persons mentioned in subparagraph a) of paragraph 240 of the Judgment. Therefore, both persons must be recognized and the respective compensation for this category of beneficiaries must be split in equal parts, and on the other hand, the fact that the victim and his wife and/or permanent common-law spouse lived together is a circumstance that was assessed by the Court when it recognized the beneficiaries of the reparation measures. In this regard, “it would not be in accordance with the duty to make prompt and timely reparations to place the beneficiaries under the obligation of demonstrating before the State