7 her employment in two public universities in the country, as part of the commitment made, taking into account the academic load that she had in a private university before her detention [...] and, above all, the effective annulment of the criminal sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment to which she had been condemned. 26. The brief of the State of March 12, 2003, in which it advised that “Mrs. Loayza should consider that her safe return to the country is guaranteed, because the State has been complying with the judgment on reparations”; it [had] paid the sum of US$99,190.30 (ninety-nine thousand one hundred and ninety United States dollars and thirty cents) for the concept of pecuniary reparations; it was coordinating her reinstatement in the teaching sector of the Ministry of Education; the Office of the Lima First Provincial Criminal Prosecutor “[...] formulated a criminal complaint against [the possible authors of the rape and grave injuries] of the victim”; it had paid US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for fees and expenses to the lawyer, Carolina Loayza Tamayo, and the Constitutional Court had delivered judgment declaring that several norms of Decree Laws Nos. 25,475 (Terrorism) and 25,659 (Treason) were unconstitutional. 27. The communication of the victim of March 14, 2003, in which she provided information on her employment situation and, in particular, stated that on March 3, 2003, she was only able to recover her position in the Colegio Nacional de Lima. 28. The brief of the State of May 9, 2003, in which it reiterated the contents of its last report of February 27, 2003, received by the Secretariat on March 12, 2003 (supra twenty-sixth having seen paragraph). 29. The brief of the victim’s representative of May 22, 2003, advising that the prosecutor of the Office of the Lima Criminal Provincial Prosecutor had formulated a criminal complaint against the possible authors of the offense of rape and the offense against the life, body and health of María Elena Loayza Tamayo. With regard to the annulment of the judgment sentencing her to 20 years’ imprisonment, he advised that this had not been carried out and that, to the contrary, there was a possibility that the victim could be subjected to a new trial for the same facts, which would violate the “ne bis in idem” principle. Lastly, he advised that the State had “only reinstated Loayza Tamayo in her position as a teacher in College 2,057, with 15 hours of employment a week as of April 2003 […]” and with a salary that was insufficient to be able to live decently, take care of her children and herself, and pay a lawyer to assist her in essential matters. 30. The comments of the Inter-American Commission of July 25, 2003, stating that “[i]t recognized the efforts made by the State to achieve the reinstatement of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo in the teaching sector. However, the characteristics of this reinstatement, as regards the type of institution in which she had been reinstated, the amount of her salary and the social benefits, did not correspond to what was ordered in the judgment.” The Commission also indicated that “by not complying fully with the provisions of the first operative paragraph of the judgment, compliance with the second operative paragraph, which establishes the obligation of the [...] State to ensure the right to retirement of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo could also be affected. As regards the obligation to adopt all measures of domestic law to ensure that no adverse decision delivered in proceedings against María Elena Loayza Tamayo in the civil courts had any legal effect, the Commission stated that there was still a need for another complementary measure (in addition to the annulment of the decrees), that had the effect of annulling any adverse decision that had been issued in the