B.1 Regarding setting the amount due and effecting payment to the victims for accruals not received from April 1993 to October 2002 14. The State reported in April and May 2010 that the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (hereinafter "the Sixth Civil Chamber") had not yet ruled on the appeal lodged by the Attorney General’s Office of the Comptroller of the Republic regarding the amount of the severance payments to be made. In this regard, the State noted that on May 28, 2009, the Fourth Specialized Civil Court of the Superior Court of Jesus of Lima notified the Office of the Comptroller General (hereinafter "the Office of the Comptroller" or "the Office of the Comptroller General") that the “new expert report [...] set the amount owed" in accruals not received by the victims between April 1993 and October 2002. Despite the Office of the Attorney General of the Comptroller’s objections to this new amount, in its Resolution 330, the Fourth Specialized Civil Court approved the severance payment and ordered it to be paid within three days. This resolution was appealed on August 14, 2009, and, as of May 2010, “it is pending adjudication before the Sixth Civil Chamber.” The State added that since 2004, the Office of the Comptroller has earmarked 3% of its initial operating budget for the payment of accruals not received by the victims between April 1993 and October 2002. The "[corresponding amount] was paid as a payment on account.”4 Additionally, the State noted that, on various occasions, the Office of the Comptroller General had requested the funds necessary for the payment from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. Furthermore, it noted that the Office of the Comptroller had requested “good offices” from the Minister of Justice and the President of the Council of Ministers in order to secure additional funds so that they could make the aforementioned payment.5 In its brief of January 2011 (supra Having Seen 2), the State reported that it was awaiting information from the Office of the Comptroller General, the “body responsible for the violation,” “so that it could continue reporting and coordinating compliance with the Judgment.” To this end, it intended to submit this information “as soon as possible.” 15. Regarding the determination of the amount owed to the victims, the representative reported to the Court that on March 3, 2010, the Sixth Civil Chamber ruled on the Office of the Comptroller’s appeal against its Resolution 330 of July 30, 2009, by affirming it and consequently affirming the expert report that calculated the amount owed by the Office of the Comptroller General to the victims for accruals and interest for the period of April 1993 to October 2002. The representative further noted that the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima had been emphatic in stressing “the considerable and prolonged 4 In the official letter issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic in April 2010, which formed the basis of the State’s April and May 2010 reports, it is shown that this State entity “has made disbursements” of specific amounts, including an amount that it “paid out” as "a payment on account" up until that time as the reimbursement of accruals not received between April 1993 and October 2002 for the victims of the present case. Likewise, in the State’s April 2010 brief, it notes that fulfillment of this Judgment “at present entails a specific sum for the Peruvian State.” As part of that amount, the State includes the aforementioned amount that the Office of the Comptroller General “paid” as the "payment on account" of the amounts owed to the victims. Moreover, in June 2011, the representative of the victims provided a copy of the Comptroller’s Official Letter No. 00014-2011-CG/DC of January 17, 2011, which was addressed to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, in which it indicates that, up until that time, the Comptroller “has made disbursements amounting to [a specific amount] for the payment on account of pensions accruals and other legal interests” in favor of the victims in the present case. However, no proof showing that the aforementioned amount of money has been allocated to "payments on account" has been presented to the victims. 5 In this regard, the State provided a copy of Comptroller’s Official Letters No. 00110-2009-CG-GG and 00832-2009-CG/DC of July 16, 2009 and October 15, 2009 to the National Directorship of the Public Budget and to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, respectively. In addition, it provided copies of Official Letters 00123-2010CG/DC and 00124-2010-CG/DC, both from February 19, 2009, addressed to the Ministry of Justice and to the President of the Council of Ministers, respectively.