20. The Commission interpreted, that in light of the information provided by the parties, “this aspect of the Judgment must be considered fulfilled.” Considerations of the Court 21. In this regard, the Court considers that, according to information provided by the State and the representatives, it has complied with the outstanding payment pending compliance to Mr. Ramirez Alvarez on June 17, 2009. 22. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court notes that the obligation to provide compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the son of Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, Marcos Ramirez Alvarez, was made after the period established in the Court’s Judgment, which was one year after notification thereof. 9 With regard to the abovementioned, the Court has stated that “upon issuing the Judgment the Court assumes that the State will, in good faith, carry out the processes and make the necessary efforts to comply with it within the mentioned terms. Consequently, with regard to the payments ordered, if the State does not comply with that stated within the mentioned term, it incurs in default and shall pay the corresponding interests on delayed payments.” 10 Consequently and in accordance with the provisions of the Judgment, the State must pay interests on the amount that is owed according to bank interest on arrears in Peru. 11 23. Thus, only in relation to the arguments made by the representatives regarding payment to Mr. Ramirez Alvarez, the Court considers that the State must pay interest on arrears at the bank rate in Peru and for the period of time between December 15 2006- date the period that was established in the Judgment lapsed-, and the date the State actually made the payment to Mr. Ramirez Alvarez, that is, June 17, 2009. D. Obligation to publish the Judgment (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 24. The State indicated that “to date, it has been collecting estimates from different national daily newspapers [and] once the domestic selection processes are made, subject to domestic and institutional regulations after publication they will inform the Court.” 25. The representatives regretted that the State is still in violation regarding this part of the Judgment given the meaning it has for both Mr. Wilson García Asto and Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas. They also indicated that “the obligations provided by the Court [...] are not based on procedures or behaviors, but rather on results.” 9 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 288. 10 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia, Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, July 9, 2009, para.65; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, September 21, 2009, para.69. 11 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 295. 7