interpreting that said ruling did not alter the ruling passed down previously by the same Chamber, because it did not rule on the merits nor did it order payment of the deductions made.22 29. The State did not refer to the arguments of the representative. 30. The Commission noted that indicated by the representative, and indicated that “it does not understand how a tax established in 2003 [was] applicable to [the] payment of [pensions for the period between 1993 and 2002]. Therefore, it requested the Court to request the State to provide information on why it would be applying a law established subsequently to amounts generated between 1993 and 2002, and on the nature of the tax in light of the prohibition provided for in the Judgment of the Court to not impose any taxes on such payments. 31. The Court recalls that in its Judgment it set forth that “[a]s to the application of Law No. 28046 of July 31, 2003, [...] the amounts to be assigned as a consequence of the enforcement of this Judgment, including the interest, may not be affected by any tax burdens.” 23 32. In this regard, the Court takes note of the information submitted by the representative in regard to the State's refusal to pay victims for certain deductions taken off the amounts owed to them, based on Law No. 28046, in disregard of that expressly provided for in the Judgment. However, the Court noted that the representative informed about the alleged deductions in May 2010 and has not again referred to this in the subsequent communications to the Tribunal. Moreover, the Court notes that it has no information or comments from the State regarding this matter. Consequently, the Tribunal considers it necessary that, in the period established in the operative paragraphs of this Order, the State present complete and detailed information on the allegations made by the representative regarding the tax deductions applied to the victim's accrued pension amounts that correspond to the period of April 1993 to October 2002 (infra Operative Paragraph 2). Furthermore, the Court also asked the representative to submit specific information about the amounts allegedly deducted, the way in which they were deducted, and, if the case may be, the reimbursement of them (infra Operative Paragraph). C. Obligation to publish the Judgment in the Official Gazette and another newspaper that is widely circulated nationally (Operative Paragraph 8 of the Judgment) 33. The State reported that on February 5, 2010, the pertinent parts of the Judgment were published in the Official Gazette and in the Diario Perú 21. Moreover, it provided copies of the aforementioned publications. 22 In this regard, along with the brief of May 2010, the representative provided a copy of an official letter issued by the Office of the Comptroller General on April 8, 2010, in relation to the victim Zoila Acevedo Isabel Leon, who is President of the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees, where, in fact, the Office of the Comptroller Generaly denies an application for a refund of deductions made on account of the solidarity contribution for pension, indicating that in the aforementioned decision of September 28, 2009, the Sixth Civil Chamber did not order the return of those deductions made by that body. Furthermore, the Office of the Comptroller states, in the aforementioned official letter, that the Sixth Civil Chamber did not make a pronuncement on merits in its ruling of September 28, 2009; therefore, the dispute which was previously resolved by said Chamber had been the subject of a judicial pronouncement that said organ could not modify. 23 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 139.