6 State, three weeks ago the Judiciary dismissed “a motion to set aside filed by the Peruvian State […]” Therefore, in the domestic system it is only disputed whether, under the Code of Civil Procedure, the amounts paid should be applied firstly on account of interest or on account of principal. The State also observed that, “as of last year, a new Law governing the State’s legal defense is in force [in Peru, according to which] the prosecutors are no longer under [an] absolute duty to appeal against or challenge all procedural acts within a judicial process […]” 19. Cesti-Hurtado stated that “[t]he Peruvian State did not act in good faith in the execution of the [J]udgment or the payment of due reparations.” During the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) the representatives of CestiHurtado pointed out that "upon the failure by the State to comply with is obligations[, the victim] was forced to file a request for execution of the arbitral award [..] on March 23, 2005 [..]" According to the representatives, “even though is true that […] Cesti has collected part of the sums under the arbitral award,” the execution process "is till pending." They further informed that an expert examination on the amounts due was approved, so the representatives are “again [involved in a process] of execution, requesting attachments.” They noted that it is untrue that the controversy is only on the order in which interest and principal are to be cancelled, because “pursuant to the domestic laws of Peru, first the costs [associated with payment] are paid[, then] interest and [finally] principal." The representatives also stated that Peruvian judges who passed orders granting execution of the arbitral award were subject to harassment and reports aiming at their punishment or dismissal. Furthermore, they noted that under the Peruvian “Prosecutor’s Office Law” (Ley de Procuraduría) state prosecutors are required to file "all types of motions" in order to halt the execution of judgments “ordering the State to make any kind of payment." Based on the foregoing, they requested the Court to notify all international credit organizations of the failure by the State to comply with the Judgments of the Court, and to require the State to cancel forthwith all due amounts and amend the “Prosecutor’s Office Law” (Ley de Procuraduría) to avoid further delays in the “administration of justice.” 20. During the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) the Commission commented that the "parties agree in that there are amounts due" and that "the judicial proceedings have been definitely closed" as to the payments to be made. In this sense, it pointed out that, “it hopes that payments are made without delay and that no major obstacles affect the execution proceedings, in consideration of the fact that the Judgment on reparations was passed nine years ago.” 21. As the way in which this obligation has been partly performed is at issue between the parties, the Court finds it convenient that the State submit a detailed report on the measures adopted in this regard. Particularly, the Court looks forward to relevant information allowing full knowledge of the decisions passed in the domestic judicial system, including the amounts due, and any information on the domestic rules and actions that have allegedly halted full compliance with this obligation. * * * 22. As regards payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage (Operative paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the Judgment on reparations,) during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) the State informed