Convention are implemented effectively and in accordance with the principles that inspired their introduction and amendment.25 35. The Court considers that amendments to the legal system of the State of Paraguay are measures that nullify domestic laws contrary to the Convention, and whose contents are geared towards meeting international standards and the terms of the provisions of the operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment(supra Having Seen 1). The Court acknowledges the efforts made by the State and considers this operative paragraph to be complied with, on the understanding that the State's obligation to adapt domestic legislation to the treaty conventions is not limited to legislative changes, but should result in the effective practical implementation of international human standards. g) Regarding paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and seventeen of the Judgment 36. Regarding the obligation to pay moratory interest on the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses (operative paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and seventeen of the Judgment), during the private audience (supra Having Seen 8) the State requested "the Court's review of" the response, through the Secretariat notes, made by the Court tothe consultation sent on December 30, 2009 by Paraguay (supra Having Seen 6) as it considered that "[in said] clarification the merits [of the Judgment] are amended," which referred to State legislation "in terms of rates and the payment system," "in light of [...] a new period [in] which the State [...] shall be subject to pay [...] interest," a system under which the State" will always [...] be in debt because the budget system make take some time to effect payment. “Furthermore, it clarified that it is not "indifferent to paying," but for "the 96 days that elapsed[ed] from the last day of the [first] year, until actual payment of the compensation." It stated that "if the Court maintains the terms of its clarifying order the Paraguayan State will pay the interest upon agreement with the petitioners for the purpose of giving a certain amount and trying to definitely comply and not with transitory amounts." Finally, the State proposed the sum of USD 2.000,00 (two thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the representatives so as to comply with this obligation, with the obligation to pay within the 2011 fiscal year. 37. During the private audience (supra Having Seen 8) the representatives let it be known that they agree with the response issued by the Court regarding the means of calculating the moratory interest (supra Viewed 6). Also, it stated that in order to expedite the payment they remain open to find a way to "pay the interest owed by [the State] in a one-off payment" by calculating "a fixed amount" agreed upon with the State. With regard to the proposal submitted by the State in its last report, the representatives presented, based on certain considerations, a counterproposal for the State to pay the sum of USD 3,000.00 (three thousand dollars of the United States of America) until December 31, 2011, date on which this counter expires. 38. The Commission, during a private audience (supra Having Seen 8), noted that it "agrees with the interpretation made by the Court, [which] is a constant practice that has been applied in this case and other cases in Paraguay," therefore "there [was] no confusion in that sense. " 39. In virtue of the statements made by the State during the hearing, the Court notes that it responded promptly to the State's consultation(supra Having Seen 6)26, therefore it cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering Clause forty-six.