has been established by the expert.” 21. The Commission noted that the payment had not been provided of the total amount that had been established by the arbitral award of April 6, 2010, issued by the Thirty-Fourth Civil Court of Lima, in which a series of incidents were resolved within the framework of said decision, the failure to comply with the total payment was noted, and measures were taken to accelerate the payment. Also, given that Peru “reported that Mr. Cesti Hurtado had executed an attachment on bank accounts and real estate of the State and, through such measures, it has been implementing the payment that was approved in his favor," the Commission “noted the efforts made to comply with this measure and consider[ed] it relevant that specific information be provided by the representatives to understand their perspective on the state of compliance with [... the measure].” 22. The Court appreciates that by way of the resolution of April 8, 2009, the ThirtyFourth Civil Court of Lima, affirmed by the decision of October 23, 2009, of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, fixed the total amount owed for principal and legal interests until November 30, 2008, and that on June 7, 2013, the liquidation was approved. In this sense, according to information provided by the State and the victims, as well as the supporting documentation, the Court finds that pursuant to paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Judgment on reparations, and 32 and 33 of the Judgment regarding interpretation of the Judgment on reparations and costs, the State has partially complied with the payment of pecuniary damages. 23. In paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Judgment on reparations, the Court held that “[t]aking into account the specificity of the requested measures of reparation as well as the characteristics of commercial law and the corporate and commercial transactions involved,” the establishment of pecuniary damage corresponds “to national institutions rather than to an international court of human rights.” Therefore, it ordered the State “to compensate the victim for pecuniary damages that were suffered due to the violations declared in the Judgment on the merits, taking into account, given the circumstances of this case, the components that make up pecuniary damage; and to proceed with establishing, according to the relevant national standards, the corresponding compensation, in order for the victim to receive them within a reasonable time.” 24. In this regard, as has been reported, a possible expert determination and court ruling is still pending on whether additional interests have been generated. Accordingly, the Court requires the State to submit detailed, complete, and updated information, along with the appropriate supporting documentation, to allow for the appropriate monitoring of compliance with this measure. In particular, the Court is waiting for information that will aid in its understanding of the decisions issued in the domestic judicial proceedings, so that it can define whether the State has complied with all the obligations arising from its Judgments on this measure of reparations. D. Obligation of payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage (Operative paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the Judgment on reparations) 25. The State reiterated that it paid the sum of U.S.$65,000.00 (sixty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America), through its delivery of the following amounts: U.S. $25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado; U.S. $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Carmen Cardó Guarderas Cesti; U.S. $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of 8