11 8. Having monitored compliance with the judgments on merits and reparations delivered in the present case, and after examining the information supplied by the State, by the Commission and by the representatives between the November 27, 2003 Order and the present, the Court has established that the State has complied with the obligation to publish the operative part of the August 18, 2000 Judgment on merits in a newspaper with nationwide circulation (supra Having Seen 2.7, 9.b and 10.b). * * * 9. As for the duty to take the measures necessary to render null and void the conviction that the Supreme Court of Peru handed down against Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, in accordance with operative paragraph four of the December 3, 2001 Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen 2), the State reported that the National Chamber on Terrorism issued a resolution to the effect that “in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 926, the verdict [of conviction handed down by the Supreme Court of Peru against a number of persons] was nullified save in the case of Luis Alberto Cantoral, among others, due to the fact that the person in question was pardoned and later rehabilitated.” In the State’s view, this meant that the pardon “had rendered the conviction null and void and automatically nullifies [Mr. Cantoral Benavides’] criminal record.” (supra Having Seen 8.b). 10. Supreme Resolution No. 078-97-JUS of June 24, 1997, which was the instrument through which Mr. Cantoral Benavides was pardoned, states that “Law No. 26655 created an Ad Hoc Commission charged with evaluating and proposing to the President of the Republic, as an exceptional measure, the grant of a pardon to those convicted of crimes of terrorism or treason based on insufficient evidence, thereby enabling the Ad Hoc Commission to reasonably presume that there was no type of association with terrorist elements, activities or organizations; and […] that, pursuant to Article 118 of the Constitution of Peru, the President of the Republic has the authority to grant pardons […].”3 These facts were established in the proceedings on the merits of the present case. 11. The pardon granted to Mr. Cantoral Benavides did not nullify the conviction that the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru entered against him, as was pointed out in the merits phase of the proceedings,4 which, in the reparations phase, was the reason why the Court ordered that the conviction be rendered null and void (supra Having Seen 2.4). Moreover, it has been established that in application of Legislative Decree No. 926 the National Chamber on Terrorism nullified the sentence of conviction issued by the Supreme Court in the case of a number of people, but not in the case of Luis Alberto Cantoral, among others, on the grounds that he had already been pardoned. In other words, for purposes of the present case, the pardon was one means of exonerating Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides of all criminal responsibility. Hence, and on the understanding that the pardon granted has had substantially that effect, the Court considers that the State has complied with the obligation to render null and void the conviction in question. 3 Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 121. 4 Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 2, paragraphs 118-122.