5 of the Court “will have to be provided by the Ministry of Economy pursuant to the procedure for the execution of judgments issued by Supranational Courts.” She added that said law is not applicable to the present case since it was enacted more than one year and a half after the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court. On the other hand, if the compensatory amounts (without interests) were correctly set by the Constitutional Court just two months after the judgment of the Court was issued and notified, the correct thing to do would be to use funds from the FEDADOI, which do not require budget availability to be used in compliance of the judgments of the Inter-American Court. Besides, it is the State’s obligation to pay the victim in a complete and timely manner and, if it is the case, with interests. 12. The brief of April 20, 2005, through which Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur informed that she had received from the State “a check in soles equal to $100,000.00 dollars [of the United States of America], amount that constitutes one third of the amount it was ordered to pay as compensation.” However, Peru had not referred to the interests for delayed payments or to the date on which it would pay the outstanding balance. 13. The brief of April 22, 2005, through which Mrs. Herlinda Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre Roca stated that she agreed with the arguments of Mrs. Revoredo expressed in her brief of April 11, 2005 (supra Consideration 11). She added that the reasons for her lack of conformity were: the fractioned payment of the debt, the fact that the judgment of the Court, which should have been complied with in a prompt and comprehensive manner by the State, was not being fulfilled; the omission of the payment of the interests earned for the delay in the compliance with the judgment; and the lack of seriousness of the state bodies in charge of the case. Finally, she expressed her lack of conformity before the little interest to determine and punish those responsible for the destitution of the Senior Judges. 14. The brief of May 2, 2005, through which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations to the state’s report of March 14, 2005 (supra Consideration 9). The Commission, inter alia, requested that the Court urge the State to: a) immediately take effective measures for the investigation, processing, and punishment of the facts of the case, and b) complete the procedures required for the compliance of the obligation to pay the amounts due with its corresponding interests for delayed payment. 15. The note of September 9, 2005, through which the Secretariat asked Peru, following the instructions of the full Court, to present a detailed report on the progress reached in the compliance with the Judgment, for which it granted it time until November 9, 2005. 16. The brief of November 11, 2005, through which the State informed of the actions carried out for compliance of the pending matters of the Judgment. In this sense it stated, inter alia, that: