9 and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is actually practical and efficient, having present the special nature of the human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have acknowledged the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. In this sense, Peru must adopt all the necessary measures in order to effectively comply with that ordered by the Court in its Judgment of January 31, 2001 (supra Consideration 1). 8. That when supervising the comprehensive compliance of the Judgment on merits and reparations issued in the present case, and after analyzing the information provided by the State, the Commission, and by the victims or their next of kin, the Tribunal has verified that Peru made several payments in the concept of the arrears of salary and other benefits ordered in favor of the victims: as can be concluded from the briefs presented by Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur, Pilar Vega Alvear de Rey, and Herlinda Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre Roca on January 14, 2005, February 21, 2005, and March 11, 2005 (supra Considerations 4, 6, and 8), respectively; the State made a partial payment of S/ 322,000.00 new soles, equal to US$ 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America), in favor of these women, in the concept of compensation for the arrears of salary. Likewise, on January 12, 2006 the mentioned victim and the next of kin informed the Court that on December 28, 2005 the State made a payment in the amount of S/ 517,496.20 new soles, in favor of each of them, in the concept of said compensation. Mrs. Revoredo Marsano, Vega Alvear viuda de Rey, and Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre Roca stated that with this last payment, added to the aforementioned partial payment, the State had paid the totality of the compensation, which had been set at S/ 839,496.22 new soles in favor of each of the former senior judges, without taking into consideration the interests for delayed payments. Finally, through a brief received on January 26, 2006, Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur informed that in the month of January 2006 the State had paid her the amount of S/ 45,749.06 new soles, equal to US $13,455.76 [dollars of the United States of America] in the concept of interests (supra Consideration 24). 9. That Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur, Pilar Vega Alvear viuda de Rey, and Herlinda Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre Roca have stated that, even though they did receive the compensatory payment, the amount of the interests for delayed payments has not yet been determined or paid since there is a disagreement with the State regarding the date as of which they should start to be computed. Besides, Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur stated that the payment received on December 28, 2005, as well as the last payment received in the month of January 2006, was assigned to the payment of interests until their amount is determined, since Article 1257 of the Peruvian Civil Code grants the creditor the power to assign the partial payment to the interests due and then to the capital. In relation to the above, the victims also stated their disagreement with the State, in the sense that, according to the latter, the funds required to make the pending payments had to be provided by the Ministry of Economy, in application of law 27775 (Law that regulates the procedure for the 3 Cfr. Case of Cantos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, sixth whereas clause; Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, sixth whereas clause, and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, sixth whereas clause. In this sense, cfr. Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, ECHR, Series A no. 28, para. 34; y Permanent Court of Arbitration, DutchPortuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914.