5 6. That, as to the obligation established in operative paragraph four of the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause 1), it springs from the information forwarded by the common interveners and the State that the original proposal that the State made to the common interveners was to set up a body of five members: the representatives of the State and two of the victims. The common interveners turned down the proposal upon considering that it did not conform to the criteria established in the Judgment as to the impartiality of the body and therefore, they proposed an evaluation commission of five members, made up differently: two members representing the victims, two members of the State and a fifth member, a President, elected by common agreement and based on a slate proposed by each party. The State and the common interveners agreed on that in a meeting held on September 26, 2007 and on October 29 of that same year, the Congress of the Republic expressed its consent in written. Two months later, the interveners appointed the victims’ representatives and proposed a slate to elect the fifth member. 7. That, on November 23, 2007, the State received a letter from Mr. Adolfo Fernandez Saré, a representative of a victims’ group, in which he expressed to be in disagreement with the appointments made by the common interveners and requested the Ministry of Justice to convene a General Meeting so that all the beneficiaries may elect the two representatives before the evaluation commission and therefore, he proposed another slate to elect the fifth member of the commission. He alleged that most of the victims agreed with such request, though he did not present any evidence for such argument. Other group of victims, represented by Mrs. Carolina Loayza Tamayo, also expressed its disagreement with the evaluation commission, pointing out that the commission was not an impartial and independent body and that, therefore, did not comply with the Judgment of the Court. 8. That upon receiving the letter from Mr. Fernandez Saré, the common interveners urged the Human Rights National Council (hereinafter, the "CNDH"), by means of a letter dated December 6, 2007, to decide whether the objection of Mr. Fernandez Saré would have an effect on the enforcement of the Judgment already agreed by the parties. On January 8, 2008, the Executive Secretary of CNDH requested the interveners to check that most of the victims had agreed with the appointment of the representatives before the evaluation commission, and considered that it was “essential, in the opinion of [such] Executive Secretariat, for the accredited representatives before the CDH to come to an agreement in relation to the people that would be part of the so-called 'evaluation commission'. In response to the foregoing, the common interveners sent the CNDH a copy of the 170 powers of attorney of the victims of the instant case by which it was appointed as their representative in the proceedings related to the case. On January 25, 2008, the CNDH stated that it would review the validity of those documents to demonstrate the appointment of the members to the evaluation commission on the part of the common interveners. The CNDH forwarded the issue to the Director of the General Office of Legal Affairs, who communicated the CNDH, on February 14, 2008, that the powers of attorney, to authorize the representatives “to represent in the conversations or negotiations and in order to solve the case", were not valid for the appointment before an evaluation commission, given that the case had been already solved with the Judgment. It also asserted that it considered that, in order for them to be valid, it would be necessary to obtain a special power of attorney that would expressly contemplate the appointment of the members of the evaluation commission. 9. That the process of selection of the members of the evaluation commission continued and, in April 2008, the five members of the commission had already been elected, including its President and fifth member. Furthermore, on May 23, 2008, four of the victims’ representatives met at the branch of the CNDH, whose minutes expressed that there was no agreement between the representatives regarding the appointment of the members of the evaluation commission and that "they could not come to an understanding".