22 refunding the transaction tax” it offered, “to take the necessary steps before the competent instances to ensure that people receive the refund.” Subsequently, the State, “considering the victims’ representatives indicated that the payment of the compensations had been completed, […] it request[ed] the Tribunal to declare compliance with operative paragraph thirteen of the [J]udgment”. 82. In its observations of May 22, 2009 and January 4, 2010 (supra Having Seen 11), the representatives acknowledged that “the State had paid the compensation ordered by the Court" and made no reference to the result of possible actions taken to obtain the refund for money deducted as tax (supra Considering Clause 81). Furthermore, the representatives forwarded a brief in which some next-of-kin expressed, inter alia, their disagreement with the response given by the authorities of the Interior and Justice Ministry regarding the procedure they should follow in order to be paid the compensation if one of the relatives, declared to be entitled to compensation in the Judgment, were to die (supra Having Seen 11). In addition, some next-of-kin of one of the deceased victims (supra Having Seen 7) complained about the payments made by the State, indicating that they were less than they should have been. 83. The Commission observed, inter alia, that it "value[d] the information regarding the payments and the measures to refund the tax collected" and noted that "[t]he representatives repeated that they confirmed the payments were made." 84. In addition to the foregoing, the representatives brought some matters before the Court related to the State’s decision to pay the compensations directly to the beneficiaries and not through their representatives, which they consider "to affect the victims and their next-of-kin inasmuch as such act disregards the legal representation that the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo [José Alvear Restrepo Legal Cooperative] provides on their behalf” (supra Having Seen 4). The State and the Commission presented observations on this matter (supra Having Seen 5). The Court and its Presidency ruled on said arguments by means of notes of March 28 and May 16, 2008 (supra Having Seen 6).27 Likewise, the Court refers to its decision in relation to the alleged problems between some victims and the representatives regarding a percentage charged by the representatives as a fee (supra Having Seen clauses 7 and 8).28 85. This Court has verified that, as informed by the State, by means of Resolutions N° 2402, N° 2444 and N° 3114 issued by the Ministry of Interior and Justice on August 25 and 28 and October 28, 2008, compensation payments for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage were ordered, as well as the reimbursement of legal costs and 27 Following the instructions of the Presidency of the Tribunal, it was communicated to the parties that, according to the provisions of paragraph 308 of the Judgment, "it [did] not note arbitrary conduct by State when it intends to pay the compensations ordered by means of the deposit in said bank accounts of the beneficiaries of the reparations”. Furthermore, it indicated that “it did not observe an impairment of the right of the beneficiaries to appoint legal representatives, in the understanding that the representatives c[ould] act on their behalf at the domestic level and before this Court in the event the payments to be made by the State [were] contrary to what was stipulated in the [...] Judgment." The Tribunal decided that “if the victims or their next-of-kin confer a specific power-of-attorney to a third party to receive the payments ordered in the […] Judgment, after notice thereof, which shall have to comply with the legal requirements established by the domestic legislation, the payment ordered in paragraph 308 of the Judgment [could] be made through an agent.” 28 By means of note of the Secretariat, it was indicated that "the Inter-American Court ha[d] previously mentioned that ”it is not competent to rule on the agreements the victims may enter into with their representatives in relation to professional fees” and that “any controversy that may arise for these facts shall be settled at the domestic level before the competent local authorities.”