8 a) both the State and the victim have informed the Court that payment has been collected through a deposit certificate issued as a result of the execution proceedings instituted by the latter. However, Mr. Cesti-Hurtado has also informed that the State has appealed the Decision that ordered the writ of execution and the subsequent payment of a portion of the obligation. Therefore, the controversy in this regard would seem to be related to whether the decision ordering payment is final or not; b) court decisions intended to enforce compliance with the obligations arising out of the Judgments of the Court must be observed, and so must any other efforts made by government authorities to guarantee the rights of Mr. Cesti-Hurtado; c) during the process to collect the amounts awarded for pecuniary damages Mr. Cesti-Hurtado has faced many obstacles and difficulties. regarding the principle of good faith and the implication this principle has in compliance proceedings, the Commission hopes that there will not be any more delays to comply with the orders of the Inter-American Court, and d) interest accrued as from the arbitration award has not been paid. 21. The brief filed by the victim’s representative on February 25, 2006 and its Appendixes, whereby the Court was informed that on December 14, 2005 an order was issued holding the proceedings to enforce the arbitration award null and void, thus bringing the proceedings back to square one and reversing the progress achieved with regard to compliance with payment, as if it had never been made. Furthermore, even when funds had been made available to meet the payments ordered in the Judgments of the Inter-American Court, amicable settlements and arbitration awards, the Ministry of Justice failed to settle its debt to Mr. Cesti-Hurtado. 22. The State report of April 27, 2006 and its Appendixes, in which the State, after having been granted an extension, indicated that: a) interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage was recalculated at US$3,992.95 (three thousand nine hundred ninety-two US Dollars and ninety-five cents), and b) the order of the Thirty-seventh Civil Court granted a precautionary measure that could not be executed insofar as the banks had to determine which State accounts were used for the deposit of revenue directly collected. Nevertheless, the Court decided to issue a writ of execution on the State's checking accounts and deposits in the domestic financial system without notifying the banks so that they could determine the accounts subject to execution. The court order was issued in error and was, therefore, null and void. In addition, the court made no reference to the application of domestic laws, and by failing to consider applicable law, the court lacked sufficient grounds to issue the order, thus rendering it null and void. 23. The brief of the victim’s representative of May 31, 2006, referring to the State report of April 27, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause No. 22), whereby he informed, inter alia, that the State only referred to the status of the execution proceedings instituted by Mr. Cesti-Hurtado on March 29, 2005, but made no reference to the steps