6 accomplished. To date, no measure had been taken towards her reinstatement in the other public employments, or for her to receive the total of her earnings adjusted to take inflation into account. The victim had not received her salary and benefits since September 17, 1997, for uninterrupted employment activities, and that obliged her to continue in exile. Moreover, she had only be granted six months leave for illness, so that she would be retired owing to disability, if she did not return to her teaching activities before October 26, 2001. The criminal sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment had not been annulled, the State had advised that the offenses committed by its agents were statute-barred and the State had not offered the victim any help to recover her health. 22. The Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, in which it decided: 1. That the State had the obligation to take all necessary measures to comply effectively and promptly with the judgment on reparations of November 27, 1998, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Loayza Tamayo case, in accordance with Article 68(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. […] 23. The brief of the State of November 29, 2002, in which it submitted a report on compliance with several judgments that the Court had delivered against Peru. Regarding the instant case, the State advised that it had complied with the payment of US$99,190.30 (ninety-nine thousand one hundred ninety United States dollars and thirty cents) for reparations to María Elena Loayza Tamayo and her next of kin. 24. The comments of the victim’s representative of February 12, 2003, indicating that the 20 years’ imprisonment to which María Elena Loayza Tamayo had been sentenced had still not been annulled and, therefore, she was obliged to remain in exile; that the Office of the Lima Criminal Provincial Prosecutor, which was in charge of the case, had decided to file the complaint for the offense against the life, body and health, the offense against personal freedom, and the offense against the public administration committed against the victim alleging that the criminal action was statute-barred; that the State had not taken “all pertinent measures to reinstate the victim in all the positions in which she was employed when she was detained, [i]t had only reinstated her legal status as a college professor, with a number of working hours and, consequently, with a salary that did not allow the victim an adequate standard of living”; that the salaries and benefits that the victim should have earned during her detention had not been paid; and that Decree Laws 25,475 (Terrorism) and 25,659 (Treason) had not been derogated, even though the Constitutional Court had declared that some of the norms of those decrees were unconstitutional, because “even though the interpretations of [this court] are binding for all legal agents, that does not guarantee per se that the provisions of the pertinent decrees are applied de facto according to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court and, therefore, does not guarantee the fundamental rights of the victim to the nonrepetition of facts that violate human rights similar to those that were negatively assessed by the Inter-American Court.” 25. The note of the victim of February 21, 2003, stating that she was too afraid for her own safety to return to Peru, because although the State had “complied with the financial reparation” it had not complied with “the investigation, identification and punishment of those responsible for violating [her] fundamental rights; effective derogation of Decree Laws 25,475 (Terrorism) and 25,659 (Treason); payment of [her] earned salaries and benefits for uninterrupted employment; reinstatement in