5 the Judgment on Reparations in the Loayza Tamayo Case that “the State of Peru should take the measures necessary so that Decree-Laws No. 25.475 and No. 25.659 conform to the American Convention”; and e. the Court also passed judgment beyond that requested, because while the application of the Commission referred to a just compensation for Ms. Loayza Tamayo, the Court included compensation for her family members, even though they did not appear in the proceedings. 13. The writing of the victim dated July 23, 1999, submitted to the Secretariat on the twenty-sixth of the same month and year, which made observations about the June 14, 1999 Order of the Second Transitional Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of Peru. In that respect, the victim stated that a. the State has not complied with the reparations set in the respective order. Peru’s decision not to comply with the judgment of the Court constitutes open defiance of its human rights commitments to the international community; b. Peru’s noncompliance does not only constitute a violation of its international and legal obligations in itself, but also evidences a lack of volition and bad faith in the fulfillment of the basic and fundamental principles of humanity and of international law (pacta sunt servanda and bona fide). c. the Court already adopted a final judgment that, by reason of Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights, is not subject to appeal; d. the Court has the authority to set reparations in a concrete case under Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights; e. the Court can rule on the obligation of Peru to comply with judgments of the Court in accordance with Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which sets forth the obligation of States to respect the rights and freedoms provided for in said Convention, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the same; f. the Court has ruled that the results of its judgments are obligatory, final, and enforceable in accordance with Articles 63, 67, and 68 of the American Convention on Human Rights; g. the Court has the authority to submit for the consideration of the General Assembly those recommendations that it considers pertinent to the purpose of ensuring compliance with its judgments, as well as providing recommendations for the improvement of the system in relation to the work of the Tribunal, in accordance with Articles 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court; and h. the Judgment on Reparations was rendered nine months before Peru submitted to the Secretary General of the OAS, the document through which it withdrew its recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. Even if the Court were to accept with immediate effect its withdrawal from the Court, it would not affect the decided cases, as Peru’s decision cannot be retroactive.