3 [...] 6. to order the State of Peru to make the payments indicated in operative paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 within six months of the notification of this judgment. [...] 7. to order that the payments for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage established in this judgment shall be exempt of any charge or tax that exists or that may exist in the future. [...] 8. to monitor compliance with this judgment and to close this case once the State of Peru has fully applied all its provisions. 4. The Ruling on Interpretation of the Judgment on reparations, issued by the Court on November 27, 2001, in the operative paragraphs of which it unanimously decided: 1. That the request for interpretation of the May 31, 2001 judgment in the Cesti Hurtado case, filed by Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, [wa]s admissible. 2. That the request for a public hearing on the request for interpretation of the judgment on reparations made by Mr. Cesti [wa]s not in order. 3. That the State of Peru [should] set the indemnification due to Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado for material damages caused, for which purpose it [should] facilitate, in good faith, access by Mr. Cesti to the appropriate domestic legal procedures for the victim to obtain the aforementioned indemnification, if it were in order, within a reasonable time. 5. The report on compliance with the judgment on reparations submitted by the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on February 11, 2002, in which it stated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had accused former members of the Supreme Council of Military Justice complaint before the Supreme Court for their acts in the Cesti case, and that the proceeding was ready for “a ruling to be issued;” in connection with the pecuniary damages, it found that Mr. Cesti had access to the judiciary path to initiate the respective actions; and regarding moral damages, legal costs and expenses, it asserted that the State set up a special fund to manage the monies unlawfully obtained to the detriment of Peru (Fondo Especial de Administratión del Dinero Obtenido Ilícitamente en Perjuicio del Perú, hereinafter “FEDADOI”) to make the respective payments. 6. The March 13, 2002 brief, in which the Commission (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) pointed out that, according to information supplied by the petitioners, the Peruvian State had not complied with any of the provisions of the ruling on reparations issued by the Court (supra Having Seen 3). 7. The March 13, 2002 brief and its attachments, in which the victim and his representative submitted their comments on compliance by the State with the judgments on the merits and on reparations. In said brief, they asserted that the State had not complied with the judgments. They specifically pointed out that Mr. Cesti had not been notified by any State agency that an investigation was being conducted in connection with the facts pertaining to himself as a victim of those facts, and that he had only been asked to appear as a witness and not as an injured party in a proceeding against former members of the Supreme Council of “Military