2 the State of Peru must pay as reparations to the next of kin of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. This payment must be made by the State of Peru pursuant to the proportions and terms established in the Judgment. 2. That the State of Peru must investigate the facts of the instant case, as well as identify and punish those responsible for them, and take all necessary measures in its courts to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation. 3. That the payment indicated in the operative paragraphs one and five of the Order must be made within six months from the date the Judgment is notified. […] 5. Establish US$2.000,00 (two thousands US dollars) or its equivalent amount in domestic Peruvian currency, as the sum the State must pay the next of kin of the victim as reimbursement of their costs for procedures in Peruvian courts. 6. That the Court shall monitor the fulfillment of [the] Judgment. 3. The December 2, 1998 brief from the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), in which it notified the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State ”), the day after, regarding the Judgment on reparations delivered in the instant case, for which reason the term for compliance expired on June 3, 1999. 4. The June 11, 1999 report of the Secretariat in which, following directions from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President ”), requested the State to submit its first report on the compliance with Judgment on reparations, namely, “a detailed account of measures taken to make the payment […], as well as to fulfill the duty to ‘investigate the facts of the […] case, identify and punish those responsible for them and take all required measures in [Peruvian] courts to ensure compliance with this obligation.” 5. The July 14, 1999 report of the Secretariat in which, following directions from the President, it restated the request made to the State to submit its first report on the compliance with Judgment on reparations, since the term had expired on July 12, 1999. 6. The February 3, 2000 brief from the representatives of the victim’s next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives of the next of kin”), in which they submitted their observations on “the refusal of the State of Peru to fulfill the [J]udgment [on] reparations.” In addition, they reported that “the State of Peru [had] not only refused to respond to the repeated requests for information […]” from the Court, but also “[had] not complied with any of the points of [the] [J]udgment,” despite five requests from said representatives to the Constitutional and Social Court of the Supreme Court in order to have the Judgment on reparations put into effect. For this reason they requested, among other things, the Inter-American Court to pronounce full non-compliance of the Judgment, to reiterate the obligation of the State to fulfill it, to send the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS ”) a report regarding non-compliance of the Judgment pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention ” or “the American Convention ”) and, in addition, to ask the General Assembly to consider excluding Peru from the OAS until it fulfills the Judgment on reparations in the instant case. 7. The February 7, 2000 brief from the Secretariat by which, following directions from the Court, the report in the previous paragraph was sent to the State and it

Select target paragraph3