3 5. The communication of the victim’s representative of June 16, 1999, in which he advised that on June 14 that year, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru had issued a decision declaring “without effect” its decision of April 15, 1999, and ordering that “the rulings in the judgment of the Inter-American Court [...] be forwarded to the court specializing in the crime of terrorism so that it could proceed in accordance with the law” and, consequently, declaring that the said judgment “was non-enforceable” and “ordering” that the judgment on reparations delivered by the Inter-American Court should be returned to the Court [...] by the diplomatic channel; he therefore requested the Court to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with judgment. 6. The report of the State of June 25, 1999, in which it advised the Court of the judgment of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru of June 14, 1999, that “decided to declare that the judgment on reparations [of the Inter-American Court] was non-enforceable. The State also forwarded the original text of the Court’s judgment of November 27, 1998. 7. The comments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of July 26, 1999, on the first report of the State, in which it endorsed the representative’s request that measures should be adopted to ensure compliance with the judgment on reparations. The Commission also considered that the State’s declaration of the its intention not to comply with the reparations that had been ordered was “a flagrant disregard of the judgment of an international court […].” Therefore, it requested the Court to “demand the full, prompt and unconditional execution of the operative paragraphs of the judgment […]” and that “[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions of Article 65 of the American Convention and Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, it [should] proceed forthwith to inform the Secretary General of the Organization of American States and the States Parties to the American Convention of this matter”. 8. The brief of the victim’s representatives of July 29, 1999, in which they stated that the “decision [of the Peruvian State] not to comply with a judgment [of the Inter-American Court] constitute[d] blatant defiance of the international community’s commitments to respect human rights.” Among other matters, they requested [the Court] to declare “total non-compliance by the Peruvian Government”; to reiterate to the State that it had the obligation to comply with the judgment; to “order Peru [...] to free María Elena Loayza”; and that “mechanisms [be established] that enable the judgment to be executed […]”; that “the States of the region, who are the collective guarantors of the system, be informed of the status of compliance with the judgment,” and that the General Assembly consider suspending Peru from the OAS, 9. The communication of María Elena Loayza of September 23, 1999, in which she addressed the Court in order to “request that pertinent measures [be taken] to cease the harassment, threats and slander campaigns against [her] physical and mental integrity [and that] adequate mechanisms [be sought] to ensure that the State of Peru execute[d] the order issued by [the] Court.” 10. The order on compliance in this case issued by the Inter-American Court on November 17, 1999, in which the Court decided: