3 3. The Order of April 28, 2009, whereby the Court, inter alia, reminded the Republic of Peru (hereinafter "Peru" or "the State") that the term to submit its first report on compliance with the Judgment had expired on June 20, 2008, without Peru informing about the status of compliance thereto. Also, in the Court Order it stated: 1. That [...] the State has not fulfilled its obligation to inform this Court about measures taken to comply with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment [...]. 2. To keep [would] open the monitoring procedure concerning all of the operative paragraphs of the Judgment [...], reserving the right to timely convene a hearing on monitoring compliance to assess compliance with this ruling. AND RESOL[VED]: […] 2. To request the State to submit to the Court [...], by no later than June 1, 2009, the first report indicating all the steps taken to comply with the provisions set forth by the Court [in the Judgment]. 4. The brief of August 4, 2009, and its annexes, whereby the State presented copies of the documents submitted by the Peruvian judicial branch on compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of April 25, October 1, 17 November and 4 December 2009, and March 2, 2010 and its annexes, whereby the common intervener of the representatives of the victims and their families (hereinafter "the common intervener"), inter alia, submitted comments regarding compliance with the Judgment, and indicated that the State had not complied with any of the operative paragraphs therein. 6. The notes of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat") of 12 August 30 September 7 and October 21 and December 9, 2009, and March 5, 2010, by which, following instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter "the Presidency"), it reminded the State that submission of the first State report on the implementation of all measures of reparation ordered by the Court in the Judgment was outstanding, and requested its submission as soon as possible. 7. The briefs of April 11 and May 26, 2010, whereby the common intervener, inter alia, asked the Court to consider the issue of "complete incompliance with the [J]udgment" and convene a hearing on the "[m]onitoring of [c]ompliance there[to] [...] as soon as possible." 8. The communication of July 26, 2010, whereby the State requested a hearing be convened on monitoring compliance with the Judgment, to "expose [...] the treatment that, according to Peruvian law, has been given to economic reparations." 9. The note of the Secretariat of August 3, 2010, whereby following the instructions of the President-in-Office for the present case (hereinafter the "President-in-Office") it informed the State that the hearing could not be convened at present, among other reasons, "the need to firstly have a written report on compliance with each of the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment and the relevant observations of the common intervener of representatives of the Inter-American Human Rights." In light of this, a new deadline was awarded to the State of October 3, 2010, to submit said report, and indicated that this term should be considered non-extendable.