handicaps upon request of the interested parties, who must present their request within an 8-month term.” G.2) Information and observations of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 65. The State indicated that the "responsibility" to pay compensation established in the Judgment for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, “is conditional on the outcome of the judicial process that is pending in case file No. 11891-2010, under the Specialized Court on the Execution of Supranational Sentences” as of April 7, 2010, and thus “being that this case is in judicial proceedings,” the obligation to provide redress is determined by the judicial decision in the domestic forum.” In this regard, the State indicated that the supranational court takes into account that mentioned in paragraph 433(c)(v) of the Judgment in this case, which should be done at the request of the interested parties within eight months as of the notification of the Judgment. Regarding the calculation of the period of time, the State indicated that “it currently considered the date of December 20, 2006, as the date upon which the State [...] was notified of the Judgment.” In that sense, according to the calculation of the period established per domestic law” the deadline for submitting the requests for compensation inevitably lapsed September 5, 2007.” 61 It noted that this is the period that “the court takes into account when declaring the inadmissibility of the appearances that took place from that date forward” and consequently, the judicial decisions that followed this criteria "are being appealed.” Moreover, it also noted that “the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights through the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the National Headquarters has asked the Judge to forward the exact amounts of compensation once they are determined to the Office of Expertise of the Judiciary.” 66. Furthermore, in relation to "the appearances of the family members of the 41 victims in the case,” Peru argued that “they have not appeared in these proceedings pursuant to the law (they have not established the familiar relationship),” and it stated that "in regard to appearances, there are two groups of people": i) “[t]hose that appeared as parties to the proceeding within the period of time,” 62 and ii) "[t]hose that appeared as parties in these proceedings after the deadline” 63 (supra Considering clause 65). Regarding this latter group of people, it stated that their requests have been "declared inadmissible because [they] exceeded the time period set by the Judgment of the Court, granting the appeal, and a decision of the Higher Courts is pending.” Moreover, as to the request of the common intervener Feria Tinta on the standardization of the list of beneficiaries presented with her 61 In this regard, the State indicated that "[a]t first, the Supranational court considered the date of August 10, 2009 as the date of the calculation of deadlines," and that by way of “Order No. 16 dated August 19, 2012" the "Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima [...] corrected this interpretation and said [that] it was wrong." It also noted that the deadline only takes into account the working days as of notification of the Judgment of the Court. (State Report of September 24, 2013, case file on Monitoring of Compliance With Judgment, tome V, folio 2456). 62 It reported that within this first group “140 [individuals] appeared among which there are next of kin of the deceased victims and those declared injured and unharmed survivors,” regarding whom ''the Supreme Court has responded to [all] these requests dated September 3, 2007, “ and that "[i]t was as of March 2008, that these 140 people began to submit requests for absolution of transfer and others, determining their legal status and specifying the amount that corresponds to them"(State Report September 24, 2013, case file on Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, take V, folio 2456). 63 It noted that within this 2nd group there are "a group of beneficiaries of the judgment" that “have appeared in the civil proceeding [...] after of the [eight months] provided by the [...] Court [, s]upressing many orders the deadline by the Supranational Judge on September 5, 2007 "(State Report of September 24, 2013, case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, take V, folio 2456). 28