8 son is buried. Accordingly, they requested the Court to require the State to provide the necessary guarantees concerning the granting of a definitive place for the burial of the remains of the former intern, and f) From the State’s report, there was no evidence that the Executive Branch had introduced the payment of the compensation in this case into the budget submitted to the National Congress. In this regard, the failure of the State to present a precise timetable concerning the way in which the compensation would be paid made it impossible to assess progress in compliance with this aspect. 8. The brief of December 19, 2005, in which, after having been granted an extension, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented observations on the State’s report (supra Having seen paragraph 5), and considered that: a) The State had taken a series of administrative steps to comply with the judgment; b) A dispute existed regarding the provision of a place for the burial of the son of Mrs. Pérez. Moreover, the State should have complied with this obligation within 15 days and, considering its simplicity and specificity, there should have been no major delay. Consequently, the Commission deemed it pertinent that the State should be required to present appropriate and specific information on compliance with this obligation; c) Although the publications of the pertinent part of the judgment had been made more than six months after the judgment had been notified, the State had complied fully with this aspect; accordingly, there was no longer any need to monitor it; d) The establishment by the State of short, medium and long-term policies concerning children in conflict with the law was extremely important. In addition, the Commission considered that it was of fundamental importance to ensure the non-repetition of the facts. The Commission agreed with the representatives that more than a year had elapsed since notification of the judgment and the task force responsible for drawing up these policies had not been created. Regarding the public acknowledgement of responsibility, although the State had underscored the intention of both the President of the Republic and other authorities, there had been no formal progress in compliance; therefore the Commission considered that the State had failed to comply with this obligation; e) Based on the information provided by the other parties concerning medical, psychological, vocational and educational assistance, the Commission considered that some measures had been taken towards compliance, but it was not possible to determine whether the measures of reparation ordered by the Court had been executed. In addition, most of the progress had been administrative, rather than in relation to the direct assistance to the victims and their next of kin established in the judgment. It was also concerned about the health situation of some of the victims who were deprived of their liberty. Lastly, the Commission considered that the State should submit more