3 a) to apply the ruling of the Court in its judgment on interpretation of the judgment on the merits “regarding the meaning and scope of the declaration of ineffectiveness of Laws No. 26479 and [No.] 26492”; b) to initiate the procedure to include “the most suitable legal classification” to define the crime of extra-judicial executions, within 30 days of the date the agreement was signed”; c) to initiate “the procedure to sign and promote ratification of the International Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, [...] within 30 days of the date the agreement was signed”; d) to publish the judgment of the Court in the official gazette El Peruano, and to disseminate its content through other media “deemed appropriate for that purpose, within 30 days from the date the agreement was signed”; e) to include in the Supreme Resolution ordering publication of the agreement, “a public expression of apology to the victims for the grave damages caused” and ratification of willingness to not allow this type of events to occur again; and f) to erect a memorial monument within 60 days of the date the agreement was signed. 6. To require that the State publish through a radio broadcaster, a television broadcaster, and a newspaper, all of them with national coverage, an announcement stating that the next of kin of Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, Odar Mender (or Méndez) Sifuentes Nuñez, and Benedicta Yanque Churo, [were] being sought to grant them reparation in connection with the facts in the instant case. Said publication [was to] be made for at least 3 non-consecutive days, within 30 days after notice of [the] Judgment [was] served, according to the provisions of paragraphs 31 and 32 of the latter. 7. That the State of Peru [was to] submit to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights a report on fulfillment of the reparations within six months time from the date that notice of [the] Judgment [was] served. 8. That it [would] monitor fulfillment of the obligations set forth in [the] Judgment and it [would] only close the instant case once the State of Peru has faithfully complied with the provisions set forth in [the] Judgment. 3. The Order on compliance with Judgment, which the Court issued on November 28, 2003, wherein it held: […] 16. That, after examining the information provided by the State and by the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin in their briefs on compliance with the reparations, the Court consider[ed] it essential that the State of Peru provide the Court with information on the following issues that [were] pending compliance: a) Investigation of the facts to determine the identity of those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the judgment on merits, and on the public dissemination of the results of this investigation and the punishment of those responsible (fifth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits of March 14, 2001); b) Payment of the compensation owed to the beneficiaries of Benedicta Yanque Churo and Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, who were still being sought when the judgment on reparations was delivered (subparagraph (b) of the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);