obligation to advise the Court how it is complying with each of the reparations it ordered is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment.21 27. Due to the foregoing, the Court finds that the State has not satisfied its obligation to fully comply with the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru of October 21, 1997 and January 26, 2001, regarding the reimbursement of accruals not received by the victims between April 1993 and October 2002. Therefore, the Court considers it necessary that, within the period set in the operative paragraphs of this Order, the State of Peru present updated, detailed, and complete information on: i) the implementation of the aforementioned Constitutional Court judgments, with regards to which the State must refer, specifically, to the appeals filled before the Fourth Specialized Court on Civil Matters of Lima by the Office of the Comptroller General against the ruling of the Sixth Civil Chamber of March 3, 2010, its possible decision and its current status (supra Considering Clause 15); and, (ii) the efforts made, and their results, in regard to the availability and effective payment of the amounts owed to the victims, with regards to which it must so report in a specific manner, providing the relevant supporting documents, whether it has made payment to the victims, be it partial or not, in compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court, as well as on how it plans to pay all amounts due in a definitive manner (infra Operative Paragraph 2). B.2 In regard to the obligation that the payment of accruals not received by the victims from April 1993 to October 2002, and the interests on those amounts, may not be affected by any tax 28. In May 2010, the representative noted that the Office of the Comptroller “refuses to return to the victims the amounts retained by this entity as a 'Contribución Solidaria para la Asistencia Previsional' [Solidary Contribution for Pension] regarding the pension payments owed to them for the period of 1993 to 2002.” In this regard, the representative explained that the Association for Discharged and Retired Employees filed an application for amparo against the judges of the Sixth Civil Chamber in light of the resolution ordered by this Chamber, wherein the Office of the Comptroller was allowed to deduce the amounts corresponding to the Solidary Contribution for Pension under Law No. 28046 of the accrued pensions of the victims between 1993 and 2002. In this regard, the representative informed that the appeal was resolved by resolution of the Sixth Civil Chamber of September 28, 2009, in which “it deemed that the processing of the proceeding had concluded without issuing a decision on the merits of the matter at issue due to the subtraction of the matter,” given that the complaint “had been resolved by the Judgment of the Inter-American Court [which] ordered that the State must comply with the Judgment[s] of the Constitutional Court [...] regarding the payment of accruals not received [...] without being affected by any tax burden such as the Solidary Contribution for Pension created by Law No. 28046.” However, the representative explained that the Office of the Comptroller General, “protected by said resolution without ruling on the merits," denied the request of the victims to reintegrate the deductions made for said solidary contribution regarding the “payments on account of 'accrued' pensions owed to them for the period of 1993 to 2002,” Order of the Court of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause 21, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. vs. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 18, 2010, Considering Clause 32. 21 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering Clause 7; Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 26, 2010, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. vs. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 18, 2010, Considering Clause 32.