briefs of March 5 and August 28, 2013, it reported that "currently a ruling is pending from a higher court than that of the supranational judge on this matter.” 67. Regarding the State's argument about the legal proceeding underway within the domestic forum for the determination of compensation, the common intervener Feria Tinta said that this does not explain why a judgment of the Inter-American Court, which already determined the measures of reparation, would need to be “seen again before a Peruvian court.” As such, “the State [...] makes it [...] uncertain whether or not it has an obligation regarding reparations.” In this regard, she stated that "[a] State cannot invoke reasons of 'domestic law', such as ineffective mechanisms created to withhold payments and not comply with the Judgment, as a justification for failure to comply with the measures ordered by the Court.” 68. In addition, Mrs. Feria Tinta, referred to the actions undertaken so that those she represents are recognized by the State as beneficiaries of the Court’s reparations, 64 which include requests for approval of a complete list of victims with the payments ordered by the Court in each respective case, plus the calculation of interest, to serve as reference for the State in order for it to meet its obligations. Lastly, she referred to the lack of information from the State regarding the “12 million dollars from the budget approved by Congress for 2012, for payment of compensation to the bereaved individuals and victims in [this] case.” She said the lack of compliance with these measures, “despite having had the budget for it’ and ‘carrying out proceedings for implementation of the judgment’ which have proven to be completely ineffective," demonstrate that the State "is not only in contempt with respect to the Court’s orders, but also that the Executive branch has acted against the will of the Peruvian people represented by the Congress of the Republic.” 69. The common intervener Cassel expressed that implementing “legal proceedings” regarding the measures of "monetary compensation" in order for a judge at the domestic level to determine compliance "has meant year long delays, and excluded many victims and their next of kin from appropriate measures of reparation.” Thus, "[i]nstead of a quick, simple and accessible process, there has been a transfer to a judicial forum where the victims and their next of kin, the vast majority without resources to afford attorneys, lack the legal and technical assistance to follow-up with their requests for compensation.” Furthermore, she stated that '[p]robably due to the difficulties in communication on the part of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin with a large number of those represented who are geographically dispersed, the names and surnames of some victims were spelled incorrectly in the attachments to the Judgment issued by the Court.” She specified that the differences range “from the alteration of the names due to omission or incorrect placement of some of the letters that make up the names or surnames to the complete omission of some names and surnames” and that it “has served as an excuse for the State to not comply with the judgment.” In that regard, the common intervener said that “[t]he State cannot justify its noncompliance [...] on the grounds that jurisdiction is in 64 Mrs. Feria Tinta indicated that: i) in 2007, within eight months provided for in the Judgment, "she made contact with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice to bring the request for payment of reparations of the victims she represents, who have been properly identified,” to which there was no answer and she decided “to submit a request through the Inter-American Court, including victims who were newly incorporated (next of kin and some surviving victims)”; ii) in 2009, "insistence was made on the appearance of [the] victims [...] at the Supranational Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Ministry of Justice," which was "fruitless" and that iii) in 2011 “the insistence of the next of kin was also fruitless regarding payment of compensations, and they repeatedly presented the list of victims represented by [her], with the payments ordered by the Court in their respective cases so as to serve as a reference for the Ministry of Justice in order to include the requests in the Republic’s 2012 budget by Congress” (brief of the common intervener Monica Feria Tinta of March 13, 2013, case file of monitoring of compliance, tome IV, folio 2055). 29