delay" (of approximately 12 years) experienced by the victims in the case in order to receive effective protection of their constitutional rights. This delay was a consequence of the “successive and profuse requests formulated by the defendant during the implementation stage.” According to the representative, this decision of the Sixth Civil Chamber "definitively and unquestionably ratifies the total amount owed to the dismissed and retired former employees of the Office of the Comptroller.” However, the representative stressed that the Office of the Comptroller had not complied with the orders despite the ruling of the Sixth Civil Chamber and Resolutions 350 and 359 of the Fourth Special Civil Court in Lima, issued on August 23 and October 7, 2010, which once again, requested that the Office of the Comptroller pay the amount ordered.6 In June 2011, the representative indicated that on October 25, 2010, the Office of the Comptroller filed an appeal to nullify Resolution 359, which "directed it to proceed to pay the victims the restitution that [has been] pending for more than 14 years.” This appeal was declared to be without merit in Resolution 372 of March 13, 2011, but the Office of the Comptroller appealed in turn in April 2011, “forcing another revision of the matter by the highest authority of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima [and] this delayed the procedure further still.” The representative stressed that the Inter-American Court ordered compliance with this obligation within a reasonable period. After 14 and 10 years, respectively, since the issuance of the Constitutional Court’s judgments, the State of Peru’s actions are not consistent in any way with its obligation under the Judgment. Thus, in this regard, the representative noted that a significant number of the victims have passed away “during this long and painful process.” 16. Regarding the lack of resources alleged by the State, the representative stressed in the brief of May 2010 that Peru had not made “any mention” in its briefs as to the Ministry of Economy and Finance’s December 10, 2009 response to the Office of the Comptroller General’s request for funds (supra Considering Clause 14). In this regard, the representative highlighted that the Comptroller had not followed the precise instructions and suggestions of the Ministry of Economy and Finance in order to comply with the payments indicated in the Judgment.7 This was because: (i) the Office of the Comptroller had not applied the budgetary balance that would have “partially covered the [J]udgment”; (ii) it had not applied the norm that would have allowed exceptions for compliance with the restrictions set forth in the Budget Law for the Public Sector and the General Law of the National Budgetary System; and, (iii) it had not prioritized the Office of the Comptroller’s goals so as to have the necessary resources available to comply with the Judgment. In June 2011, the representative also noted that while the Office of the Comptroller General “spends years sending recurrent official letters to the Ministry of Economy and Finance that are not heeded,”8 it continues to file appeals that impede execution of the Constitutional 6 From the copy of Resolution 359 of October 7, 2010, provided by the representative together with his brief of December 3, 2010, it is evident that after issuance of Resolution 330 of July 30, 2009, the Peruvian court had requested that the Office of the Comptroller make the payment ordered in two other court orders (Resolutions 340 and 343) which came prior to issuance of the ruling of March 3, 2010 by the Sixth Civil Chamber regarding the appeal lodged by the Office of the Comptroller General. 7 In this regard, the representative submitted, along with his brief of May 27, 2010 (supra Having Seen ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), a copy of Official Letter No. 1399-2009-EF/10 from the Ministry of Economy and Finance of December 10, 2009, as well as report No. 412-2009-EF/76.14, written by the National Directorship of the Public Budget on November 25, 2009, which details the aforementioned suggestions and instructions to the Office of the Comptroller General for the payment of the amounts ordered in the Judgment. A copy of this report was also provided by the victims Acevedo León, Beaumont Callirgos, and Chamorro Díaz in their brief of April 2010 (supra Having Seen 4). 8 In this regard, the representative provided, along with his briefs of December 2010, February and June 2011 (supra Having Seen ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), copies of official letters from March 11, April 5, July 21, September 7, and November 24, 2010; January 17 and February 4, 2011 submitted by