7 Furthermore, the Commission is concerned that, according to the victim’s statements, the criminal proceedings were not aimed at punishing those responsible for the violation of Mr. Cesti-Hurtado’s human rights, but at prosecuting misdemeanors, and they bears no relation to the facts and offenses established by the Court in this case; c) regarding payment of pecuniary damages, the Commission appreciates the efforts made by several government agencies and considers the process to comply with the arbitration award must be expedited. Furthermore, it stated that “court decisions to enforce compliance with these obligations must be observed, and so must any other efforts made by government authorities to guarantee the rights of Mr. Cesti-Hurtado,” and d) although the military proceedings have been held to be null and void, its effects continue to affect the victim. 16. The comments filed by the victim’s representative on December 28, 2005 regarding the State report of November 21, 2005, in which it indicated that: a) the following points have not been complied with: payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage; investigation of the facts of this case and punishment of the perpetrators, and annulment of the military proceedings together with the effects resulting therefrom. b) regarding the payment of pecuniary damages, although the State has complied with payment thereof, it has lodged an appeal to have the court decision granting said compensation reversed and the payment revoked, and c) the dilatory and evasive attitude of the State became apparent when "high-ranking State officials" put pressure on the Thirty-seventh Judge, who ordered payment of compensation for moral damage, to reverse his decision. Subsequently, on October 17, 2005, the State filed a complaint with the Oficina Descentralizada de Control Interno del Ministerio Público (Internal Audit Decentralized Bureau of the Attorney General's Office) against the aforesaid Judge for perversion of justice. 17. The brief filed by the Commission on January 13, 2006, requesting an extension to file the brief with comments. In addition, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to submit certain documentation. 18. The note of the Secretariat of January 18, 2006, whereby, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Commission was granted the requested extension and the State was ordered to submit the information required by the Commission. 19. The brief filed by the State on January 30, 2006, whereby it submitted the documentation requested by the Secretariat (supra Having Seen clause No. 18). 20. The brief filed by the Commission on February 6, 2006, in which it expressed concern over the numerous obligations of the State that remain unfulfilled and restated the comments submitted to the Court on December 5, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 15). As regards the payment of the compensation for moral damage, it stated that: