The representative added that “the Peruvian State, through SEDAPAL, had made the payment for costs and expenses available […] to SIFUSE.” 9. The Commission observed that the State had “referred [in its first report] to a payment timetable in order to comply with the Judgment,” and indicated that “the payment of costs remained pending […], and it was expected that this would be made when the stage of paying the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages had concluded.” The Commission noted that the State had “provided documentary proof to substantiate this information.” Subsequently, and after the State had advised that it had made the payments to most of the victims, the Commission considered that, in the case of the persons who had not been located “within the time frame established in the Judgment, paragraph 143 of the Judgment should be applied.” Consequently, the Commission considered that “the remaining aspect of the payments ha[d] been complied with partially.” 10. First, the Court underscores the efforts made by the Peruvian State to comply with the fifth operative paragraph of the Judgment. In particular, it underlines the measures taken to this end, such as the elaboration of a payment timetable to comply with the provisions of the Judgment and the discount of the special quota of 10% and of 1% on the amounts ordered by the Court applicable to the 233 employees and former employees. 6 The preparation of a payment timetable and the determination of specific forms of payment to the victims constitute good practices for compliance in cases with a significant number of victims, such as in this case. 11. Second, the Court observes that the representative and the Inter-American Commission have not contested the information presented by the State concerning the payments of the compensation made to 229 victims; in fact, the representative indicated in his most recent communication that “229 victims ha[d] already collected the reparations ordered.” In addition, the State provided the Court with the vouchers corresponding to the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the 229 victims. 7 12. Regarding the four victims who have not collected the compensation ordered directly, the Court observes that the State provided copies of the cash vouchers and of the judicial deposits that it had made in their names. 8 In this regard, paragraph 143 of the Judgment established that “[i]f, for reasons that can be attributed to the beneficiaries of the compensation or their heirs, it is not possible to pay the amounts determined within the indicated time frame, the State shall deposit the said amounts in their favor in a deposit account or a certificate of deposit in a solvent Peruvian financial institution, in United States dollars, and in the most favorable terms permitted by law and by banking practice.” 9 Consequently, the Court considers that, with the judicial deposit made in favor of the four remaining victims, the State has 6 Cf. Discount authorizations in favor of the Union of SEDAPAL Professional and Technical Employees (SIFUSE) (file on monitoring compliance, tome II, folios 674 to 733). 7 Cf. Copies of the payment of salary ratios for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage of the former employees (file on monitoring compliance, tome I, folios 382 to 501, tome II, folios 502 to 672 and 859 to 1060, and tome III, folios 1096 to 1283). 8 Cf. Copies of the judicial deposits in the Banco de la Nación in the names of Eduardo Barrera Fernández, Fernanda Soledad Bernabé de Noriega, Víctor Motta Torres and Carlos Alberto Saldivar Mansilla (file on monitoring compliance, tome III, folios 1397 to 1403). 9 Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 143. 4