6 20. On September 24, 2002, Miguel González presented an amicus curiae brief18, on compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court on February 2, 2001 in this case. 21. On November 22, 2002, the Court issued a second Order on compliance with judgment, in which it decided: 1. That the State must determine again, in accordance with the applicable domestic legislation, the specific amounts for unpaid wages and other labor rights corresponding to each of the 270 victims, without excluding any of them. This new determination must be made observing the guarantees of due process and according to the legislation applicable to each victim, so that they may submit their arguments and evidence and be informed of the parameters and legislation used by the State to make the calculations. 2. That the procedure to execute the provisions of the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of February 2, 2001, must be carried out observing the guarantees of due process and according to the legislation applicable to each victim, so that they may submit their arguments and evidence and be informed of the parameters and legislation used by the State. 3. That the State may not impose any existing or future tax, including income tax, on the compensation paid to the 270 victims or their successors. 4. That the State must pay the interest accrued over the time that it has delayed paying the compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 5. That the releases signed by some victims or their successors as a requirement to receive payment of the compensation decided in the sixth operative paragraph, which was calculated by the State, are only valid to the extent that they recognize payment of the amount of money stipulated in them. The waivers made in them, to the effect that the victims or their successors were satisfied with the payment, are invalid, so that these releases do not preclude the possibility of the victims or their successors submitting claims and proving that the State should pay them a different amount for the unpaid wages and other labor rights that correspond to them. 6. That this Court will consider that the sums of money which the State allegedly paid by cheque to 195 victims for the amounts it had calculated for unpaid wages and other labor rights are a down payment on the total pecuniary reparation owed; therefore, it should present to the Court a copy of the releases proving that the cheques have been delivered. 7. That the State has complied with the obligation to pay to all the 270 victims the sum of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) in reimbursement of expenses and the sum US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) in reimbursement of costs. 8. That, in order to reimburse the amounts paid by the State for costs and expenses, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights must consider the expenses of all the victims and their representatives, taking into account that they are not all represented by CEJIL. 9. That the State must deliver the cheques for non-pecuniary damage when the competent authorities determine who are the successors of the deceased victims who have not yet received reparation, and must pay the amounts corresponding to the interest accrued because payment will be made after the 90-day time limit has expired. 10. That the State must present a detailed report to the Court by June 30, 2003, at the latest, with which it must forward a copy of the releases signed by some of the 18 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, having seen paragraph 71.