-5Treasury would “take all appropriate measures to secure effective payment of the amount due on account of arrearage interest,” a request that is being processed and was re-submitted through the official letter of January 25, 2006. The State noted that the amount due on account of arrearage interest is ¢155,799.00 (one hundred and fifty-five thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine colones), at a rate of 2% p.a., and computed from February 6 to August 24, 2005. The State provided copies of the aforementioned official letters. 8. The brief of February 28, 2006 and the Appendixes thereto, whereby the victim’s representatives submitted their comments on the State’s report of January 30, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause No. 7) and on the communications filed by the State on October 19 and November 29, 2005 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 4 and 5), regarding compliance with the Court’s Judgment delivered in the instant case on July 2, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), further to the third operative paragraph of the Court’s Order of September 12, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). Basically, the representatives stated as follows: a) as regards the nullification of the judgment handed down on November 12, 1999 by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José and all the measures it orders, a regular complaint was filed with the Administrative Court of Costa Rica regarding the bond posted in the amount of ¢63,811,000.00 to have the attachments ordered against La Nación Sociedad Anónima in the enforcement of the criminal judgment lifted, which money was delivered to Przedborski-Chawa. Such complaint is aimed at “collect[ing] from the State the amount of said bond plus applicable interest,” and the proceeding is still pending resolution. A copy of the aforementioned complaint was filed, along with the order allowing such complaint. “[U]ntil the State has reimbursed the amount collected [by Pzerdborski] through the execution of the attachment as a result of the illegitimate judgments rendered by the Costa Rican courts, the judgment of the Court cannot be deemed to have been complied with;” b) as regards the obligation to adjust the State’s domestic legal system to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 2 thereof, “the State of Costa Rica has not complied” with such obligation “either,” as “[e]ven though a favorable opinion on the writ of cassation amendment bill was approved,” such opinion “has not been ruled upon by the Legislative Assembly en bloc, and it is possible that it will not be submitted to the Assembly.” The fact that the second temporary article of the bill makes the coming into force of such law conditional upon “the guaranteed existence of sufficient funds to cover the new work load set upon the Court of Cassation, both in terms of staff […] and as regards the facilities and material supplies” is cause for concern. They asked that the Court declare that Costa Rica “has not […] complied with the ruling within the reasonable period prescribed therefor;” and c) as regards the payment of non-pecuniary damages and costs reimbursement to Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa, the State did comply with such obligation, “other than [as regards] payment of arrearage interest to Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa, which amount is still outstanding.” The State failed to notify the victim of the computed amount of interest upon the victim’s request for information to the Ministry of the Treasury, merely advising the victim that