10 argument or a specific request in relation to the issue. Likewise, the Court observes that, in its decision, the Contraloría General de la República de Chile [General Comptroller’s Office of the Chilean Republic] held that “the concerned party’s request lacks legal grounds”. This Court, in turn, notes that the information furnished by the representatives in their brief of comments does not refer to an issue subject to monitoring by the Court. The Court recalls that, in the Judgment, it ruled on the damages caused by the stated violations and ordered the relevant reparations, which included compensation for pecuniary damages arising from the termination of the labor relationship. The State paid the amount ordered by the Court and the relevant operative paragraph was deemed complied. * * * 22. That, with regard to the information furnished by Mrs. Anne Ellen Stewart-Orlandini regarding the fact that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne did not pay her the amounts ordered in the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause 9), the State pointed out that the victim is exclusively charged with and liable for "reimbursing […] the amounts to which Mrs. Stewart is entitled, [so] it is not its duty [...] to rule on, comment or give opinions on the lack of compliance informed by Mrs. Stewart to the Court." 23. That the representatives informed that “in principle” Mr. Palamara-Iribarne would pay the owed amounts to Mrs. Stewart-Orlandini "during January 2008". Since this did not happen, "Mr. Palamara and Mrs. Stewart consider[ed] other alternatives to effect the payment, hoping to inform the conclusion of this issue to the Court as soon as possible.” 24. That, despite the time elapsed, the representatives have furnished no information regarding their client’s lack of compliance with the order of the Court included in the Judgment. Since this situation has already been considered in the Order of November 30, 2007 and no information has been received in relation to this issue, the Inter-American Court deems it necessary to reiterate the provisions of paragraphs 242 and 243 of the Judgment and the provisions of the aforementioned Order, in the sense that Mr. PalamaraIribarne must reimburse "Mrs. Anne Ellen Stewart-Orlandini for the expenses she incurred.”11 * * * 25. That, upon monitoring full compliance with the Judgment, and after analyzing the information furnished by the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission, the Court deems it indispensable that the State continue to report on the operative paragraphs of the Judgment of November 22, 2005 which are pending compliance (supra Having Seen clause 2), within the stipulated time limits, pursuant to Considering clauses 13 and 19 of the instant Order. 11 Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 9, Considering clause thirty-eight, and Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 7, paras. 242 and 243.