3 wish.” The State also advised that the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment “had been complied with fully” because the operative paragraphs of the judgment of the Inter-American Court of August 18, 2000, had been published, as ordered, in the official gazette “El Peruano” on February 3, 2002, and a resolution had been issued that ordered inserting those operative paragraphs in another newspaper with national circulation. The State reiterated that on January 31, 2002, a public act of redress had been carried out during which the State “acknowledged [its] responsibility [...] in this case and apologized to the victim and his next of kin for affecting their fundamental rights.” Peru also referred to the measures it had taken to begin complying with its obligation to provide medical care to Gladys Benavides López, the victim’s mother, and to begin investigating the facts and identifying those responsible. Lastly, it advised that it had taken different steps to comply with its obligation to annul the verdict of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru convicting Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, and to initiate an exhaustive investigation, and to prosecute and punish those responsible for the arbitrary detention and torture to which the victim was subjected. 6. The note of the victim’s representatives of April 18, 2002, in which they indicated that “in the eighth point of the communication of the State of Peru, concerning the publication of the operative paragraphs of the judgment of the Court […] of August 18, 2000, the Government’s deputy agent informed the Court, inexactly, that this point had been ‘complied with fully,’ […] however, the State of Peru […] ha[d] only complied with the publication of the operative paragraphs in the official gazette [“El Peruano”,] but not with their publication in another newspaper with national circulation.” 7. The brief of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, the victim in the instant case, of May 15, 2002, in which he stated, concerning the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations that, although a public act of redress in his favor had been carried out, this had not had the desired repercussions; that the State had not published the operative paragraphs of the judgment in a national newspaper; that, as discussed with the Government, his mother will received medical care, but the costs of only some of her medicines will be covered; that the State has prevented his siblings, who have sought refuge in Bolivia, from receiving the amount of the compensation corresponding to them; and that the Peruvian State has not granted him the agreed grant for his studies. 8. The brief of the State of June 26, 2002, advising that on April 25, 2002, “at the seat of the Ministry of Justice, a “Commitment” had been signed by the Executive Secretariat of the National Human Rights Council of the Ministry of Justice, the representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Judiciary, and the Office of the Attorney General (Ministerio Público) [and the representatives of the victim]” in which the State assumed several commitments related to compliance with the judgment. Peru requested the Court to “consider granting the Peruvian State more time in which to comply with all aspects of the judgment.” 9. The brief of the victim’s representatives of July 22, 2002, in which they indicated that “the time limit established by the Court [...], for the State to comply with the measures of reparations ordered [...] had expired, and the Peruvian State had not complied fully with them.” In this respect, the representatives advised that the State “has not complied with any payment”; that “it had not complied with annulling the verdict of the Supreme Court of Justice convicting the victim, or