21 the Judgment.31 In this way, the Tribunal remains awaiting the results of the meetings of coordination made by the State with the goal of complying with this obligation (supra Considering 59). 4. Duty to Re-Register in the Retirement Registry (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 63. Regarding the duty to re-register Mrs. De La Cruz in the corresponding registry of retired persons, the State indicated that “it has raised the corresponding official report to the Office of Provisional Normalization (ONP) with the goal that it complies with the respective re-registration of the beneficiary.” Said entity is now in the process of making the action […] for said re-registration [through] Order No. 133-2010OAJ/ONP issued by the ONP to the Secretariat General of Social Security of Health (EsSalud), so that this entity will offer the precise information of the beneficiary, and also to proceed with the fulfillment of that ordered by the Court. 64. The representative signaled that “the entity responsible for the registration[,] the Peruvian Institute of Social Security, said that [it is not possible] to comply with this point of the [J]udgment, […] because to recognize the years of services of Mrs. [D]e La Cruz would require also the recognition of all legal effects, including the remuneration effects, of the time of effective non-labor services, although the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has recognized the 25 years of service of doctor De La Cruz in a public act on August 12, 2005, a document that was alleged to this Court.” Also, the representative highlighted that the obligation ordered by the Court “is not an obligation of process [but] an obligation of results,” concluding that “it is without a doubt that economic criteria exists that [limit the fulfillment].” For the representative, the lack of fulfillment of this point generates collateral effects so that “[Mrs.] De La Cruz cannot access pension plans and other benefits of health services for herself and her next of kin in case of retirement or death through the Association of Merits of Retirement and Death of Workers, Pensionists and Former Workers of the Peruvian Social Security (FOPASEF for its Spanish acronym), given that remunerations were not perceived, the support of FOPASEF has not been paid, and for not having offered to said institution during the time that she was deprived of her liberty, she cannot access any benefit. Her debt with FOPASEF on August 25, 2008, ascended to the sum of S/. 8,605.30.” 65. The Commission “observ[ed] that the State limited itself to inform that it will continue making internal procedures” and that it “has not detailed which are the procedures that it is carrying forward nor when it foresees that they will be culminated. In this sense, the Commission […] request[ed] the Court to insist upon the State to present concrete information about the measures provided in order to give fulfillment to thi[s] point of the [J]udgment.” 66. In this respect, the Tribunal takes note of the last information provided by the State in the sense that the Office of Provisional Normalization (ONP) has issued a report to the Secretariat General of Social Security of Health (EsSalud), so that EsSalud will offer it the precise information of Mrs. De La Cruz and also to proceed with the reregistration of the same in the corresponding registry of retired persons. In this way, the Court remains awaiting the updated, ordered, and complete information regarding the fulfillment of this point. The Court considers that the measures and prior information presented by the State must be taken into account in a detailed manner in the respective observations of the representative and of the Commission about the State’s actions regarding this point of the Judgment. 31 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides V. Peru. Supervision of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2008, Considering twelfth and Case of Escué Zapata V. Colombia. Interpretation of Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 5, 2008, Considering twenty-ninth.