the University of San Martín de Porres- and awaiting the response from one. In response, the State reported that, through the representative of the Ministry of Education to the National Human Rights Council, it has requested the reinstatement of the victim in the teaching service of “any” public university; the administration of her social benefits before the University of San Martín de Porres, as well as the administration of payment on the compensation of lost income when the victim served in the National School of Dramatic Arts. 7. On her behalf, Mrs. Loayza Tamayo noted that her reinstatement to the Educational Institute 2057 of the Educational Services Unit No. 2 has been fulfilled. Nevertheless, she noted that despite the compromises undertaken by the State in the meeting on April 7, 2008, “she has not be[en] paid the compensation for lost income, nor has she be[en] informed of the results of the steps taken,” on the matter. Regarding her reinstatement to the National School of Dramatic Arts, she stated that she was never hired [for professional services wherein she had to bill for those services], [given that] she was a professor […] under a ministerial budget and payroll with privilege to all social benefits.” Therefore, she reiterated that “it corresponds to the State to provide for [her] reinstatement […] pursuant to the laws in force” and to comply “with the payment of the compensation for lost income.” In regard to her incorporation to the teaching sector at a university, she expressed her willingness to work in any national university, educational department and social work, educational institute, or institute of higher education given her background, a “Bachelor in Education with a Focus on Historic Social Sciences,” a “Bachelor in Social Work,” and “a Masters in Higher Education.” The victim noted that “she has been denied the payment of [her] social benefits derived from the severance pay for the time she worked at the University of San Martín de Porres.” Also, she noted that by way of a letter dated October 15, 2008, said university “informed her […] that the period to request payment of [her] social benefits had expired” and that she specified “not having carried out any request […] given that she anticipated the State to do so.” 8. In this regard, the Commission “value[d] the efforts of the State so that various institutions respond to the concerns of the victim.” Nevertheless, it noted that “progress has not been verified” and, in this respect, it requested the Court to require the State to present a report that “details [...] the steps taken to comply with [this point].” 9. The Court recalls that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo, at the moment of her detention worked at three educational institutions, namely: The Educational Center 2057 “Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui,” the National School of Dramatic Arts, and the University of San Martin de Porres. The Court notes that the victim confirmed the fulfillment by the State of its obligation to reinstate her to the Educational Institute 1057 and that, nevertheless, the payment is still pending of compensation for lost income from the moment of her detention until her reinstatement at said institution. In what regards the National School of Dramatic Arts, there is a controversy between the parties, since according to the victim, she was a professor under a ministerial budget and payroll, while for the State, it has complied with her reinstatement even though on September 20, 2006, Mrs. Loayza Tamayo’s contract satisfy the obligation of the judgment of the [C]ourt, either because it is not the State or because it does not hold the status of a public institution. In addition, it should be noted that during the time that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo served the university, she did so as a hired teacher. As we know, contracts of this nature are renewable for periods of time if the parties, the teacher and the University agree, a renewal that has not occurred in this case.” (case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome VIII, folios 2449 and 2474). 4