4 1. To hold, in accordance with the principle pacta sunt servanda, and in conformity with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, that the State has a duty to comply promptly with the November 27, 1998, judgment on reparations rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Loayza Tamayo case. […] 11. The brief of the victim’s representatives of December 24, 2000, providing information on the measures taken to ensure that the State complied with the judgment and requesting the Court: 1) “to request information on compliance with [the] judgment from the Peruvian State,” 2) [s]hould the judgment not have been complied with, “to request the Peruvian State to grant sufficient guarantees [for compliance within] a short period,” 3) that “the sums of money in favor of Mrs. Loayza […]” should be made available to the victim, and 4) to order that the amounts be adjusted owing to the time that had elapsed. 12. The brief of the victim’s representatives of December 30, 2000, in which they insisted on “[t]he requirement [that, in this case, the representatives have had to take] measures [...] [such as] communications with the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice, when, in other cases [...] being processed by the Commission [...] and by [the] Court, the Government of the State of Peru ha[d] not required the ‘victims’ to take any measures” in order to comply with judgments, and expressed “their surprise for this unequal treatment.” 13. The report of the State of February 16, 2001, in which it advised that the Minister of Justice, “taking into account the provisions of Legislative Resolution No. 27401, by which the Peruvian State re-establishe[d] fully the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […], ha[d] communicated with both the Office of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Economy and Finance so that, within their respective jurisdictions, they would adopt measures leading to compliance with the said judgment.” 14. The reports of the State of April 6 and 17, 2001, in which it presented information related to compliance with the decisions of the Inter-American Court and indicated that the State acknowledged “the validity and enforceability of the judgments [...] delivered by the Court’ and stated that it had been “adopting the necessary actions to comply with the jurisdictional decisions adopted by this supranational body.” 15. The report of the State of April 27, 2001, presenting information on compliance with the decisions of the Court, in which it described how the State’s international obligations were distributed by ministries and departments, according to the specific issue. 16. The Order on compliance that the Court issued on June 1, 2001, in the Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein and Constitutional Court cases, in which it decided: 1. To take note of the compliance by the State of Peru with the judgments on competence of September 24, 1999, in the Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein cases and of the progress made, up until the date that this order was issued, in compliance with the judgments delivered by the Court in the Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein and Constitutional Court cases. […]