8 26. The Court values the government’s initiative to reform criminal regulations. However, it observes the lack of information on measures to eliminate ex officio the criminal records of individuals definitely dismissed or acquitted. Therefore, it declares that this reparation measure is pending compliance and consequently asks the State to report on the measures adopted in this regard, within the term indicated in the operative section of the instant Order. * * * 27. In relation to the State and Mr. Chaparro’s obligation to submit to an arbitration procedure to establish the amounts corresponding to pecuniary damage (operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment), the State reported that through the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights it hired the company Acurio y Asociados on March 10, 2009, to perform the technical appraisal necessary to determine the valuation of pecuniary losses, lost wages, and intangibles generated to the detriment of Mr. Chaparro due to the seizure of Plumavit factory. It indicated that the company delivered its final report9 in June 2009, after incorporating the observations of the victim’s representatives and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, “which allow[s] [it] to begin a negotiation process.” It indicated that the first negotiation meeting was set for July 16, 2009. 28. The representatives indicated that in the meeting of July 16, 2009, after accepting the reports by the independent expert witness hired by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, the parties agreed to pay Mr. Chaparro a compensation of US $3.954.793 (three million nine hundred and fifty-four seven hundred and ninety-three US dollars), and for purposes of signing the corresponding agreement and subsequent payment, “the Attorney General’s authorization would be requested.” In addition, they mentioned that the Minister of Justice and Human Rights, through communication No. 05019 of September 17, 2009, “requested the Attorney General’s authorization to reach an agreement under the terms described above.” 29. Subsequently, Mr. Chaparro indicated that the Director of Human Rights of the Attorney General’s Office issued communication No. 12425 of February 18, 2010, whereby it expressed “several concerns of the Attorney General’s Office […] with regards to the agreement [between the parties];” but that this communication “did not constitute an official answer, but only a report.” The victim indicated that based on the above, and “after more than 6 months had passed without the Attorney General’s Office issu[ing] a final opinion, […] he decided not to continue with the friendly settlement procedure” and to request the creation of an arbitration court, in conformity with the provisions of the Judgment, which he communicated to the State on April 9, 2010, through a communication addressed to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and the Attorney General’s Office. He reported that after renouncing to the friendly settlement procedure the Attorney General’s Office issued a negative ruling on the signing of the agreement, “as it considered that the transaction had to be effective and categorically in favor of the interests of the State, and the mechanism selected [was] not valid to protect the interests of the State, and that the parties [had] to submit to the arbitration procedure ordered by the Court as […] it [was] the ideal mechanism.” Finally, he expressed that “he [was] waiting for the State to appoint the arbitrator, which according to the Judgment corresponds to the State.” The victim and the representative highlighted that the State “is [o]nce again […] delaying compliance with the Court’s Judgment.” 9 Cf. Summary of activities performed during the consulting services by the company “Acurio y Asociados” (file on monitoring compliance with Judgment, Volume II, folio 451), and Communication of the Subsecretariat of Human Rights and Coordination of Public Defense of Pablo Cavallos Palomeque of July 6, 2009, (file on monitoring compliance with Judgment, Volume II, folio 453).