6 the Court had ordered payment of only US$30,000 as costs and expenses —a sum which has already been paid to said attorney.” 7. The notes of the Secretariat CDH-11.016/687 and 688, of June 15, 2006, addressed to the representatives of the Gómez Paquiyauri family and to Ms. Jacinta Peralta Allccarima, wherein they were informed once again that the due date for their submissions of observations to the report filed by the State on compliance with Judgment had expired on March 29, 2006 and April 3, 2006, respectively, and wherein they were requested to file their observations to said report, if any, as soon as practicable. 8. The communication filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) on August 4, 2006, wherein the Commission pointed out that overall assessment of compliance with Judgment called for the observations of the aggrieved party as a priority; however, it considered it worrying that the State did not submit concrete information regarding most of the reparations ordered by the Court, and particularly it expressed as follows: a) in connection with the obligation to effectively investigate the events relating to this present case, two years after the passing of Judgment it seems that no action has been taken so as to comply with said State’s obligation; b) concerning the obligation to perform a public ceremony as acknowledgment of the State’s responsibility, the State has informed that it had complied with this aspect of reparation, and attached a videotape of said event. The Commission reported not to have received the referenced videotape or complete information about the organization and performance of the referenced ceremony, and believed, therefore, that the State had to provide further information on this topic; c) concerning the obligation to publish the relevant parts of the Judgment in an official newspaper and in another domestic newspaper, the publication in “El Peruano” Official Newspaper to which the State referred in its report on compliance with Judgment was not attached to the report, and therefore compliance with the order of the Tribunal could not be inferred; d) concerning the obligation to officially name an educational center of the province of El Callao after “Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri y Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri,” in a public ceremony and in the presence of the victims’ next of kin, the State expressed its willingness to comply with such obligation, but failed to report on effective fulfillment, and therefore the Commission considered it essential that the State would submit concrete information on this topic; e) concerning the duty to grant a scholarship up to university levels in favor of Nora Emely Gómez Peralta and to facilitate her registry as the daughter of Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, the Commission was worried about the lack of information on the endeavors taken by the State so as to comply with the reparation obligation imposed by the Court, as well as to contact the next of kin of Nora Emely Gómez so as to make necessary arrangements to that effect. Concerning the registry of Nora Emely as the