-5- previous values were used as references, and that, upon presenting the respective proofs of payment, the difference would be reimbursed. At the end of the 2007 academic year, they sent the proofs of payment that verified the difference in values to be paid and the representative of the Ministry of Education stated that it would be resolved in the 2008 payment. Furthermore, over the past two years, Mr. Cantoral Benavides had to buy more study materials in order to complete his degree track. At that time, they disagreed with the State because if the amounts had already been established and accepted by the victim and his representatives, then it would be unjustifiable to demand that Mr. Cantoral Benavides prove the expenses that needed to be reimbursed, and demonstrating that Mr. Cantoral was enrolled at the university as a regular student would have sufficed. 11. In relation to the State’s claim concerning the representatives’ acceptance of the amount corresponding to 2007 and 2008, the Commission only went so far as to reiterate that the representatives informed the Court that its acceptance was based upon comments made by a State employee regarding the adaptation of the real value incurred and, in spite of this, the State continued to maintain that it had fully complied with the obligation. 12. This Court has evaluated the execution of payments for Mr. Cantoral Benavides’ studies at a university in Brazil, beginning in 2004 and culminating in 2008. Regarding the alleged difference between the payments made by the State for the 2007 and 2008 academic years and the actual expenses incurred, it is plain to see that there is no document verifying that a State employee of the Ministry of Education acknowledged the representatives allegations, as stipulated in the institution’s report published by the State. Nevertheless, as set forth in the “Act of Compliance with Judgment”, signed between the Secretary General of the Ministry of Education and Mr. Cantoral Benavides on December 28, 2007, the State pledged to cover the “costs generated by Mr. Cantoral Benavides for the duration of his studies in Law at the University of San Judas Tadeo, in Sao Paulo – Brazil, as a regular student, as well as the relevant maintenance costs for the 2007 and 2008 academic years” which should be reimbursed “within the first quarter of the Budget Year following completion of the corresponding academic year,” for which Mr. Cantoral Benavides must submit “proof of relevant expenses upon completion of the respective academic year.” In other words, akin to the observations made by the representatives, considering the amounts had been fixed and agreed upon by Mr. Cantoral Benavides and his representatives, it would thus be nonsensical for the Act to demand proof of the expenses needing reimbursement. Thus, by positively assessing the efforts made by the State to comply with the payment of the university degree as an alternative form of complying with the academic scholarship that the Court made provision for, and in the understanding that Mr. Cantoral Benavides has voluntarily renounced any interest therein arising, a right that is voluntarily and expressly renounced,10 it urges the State to take the pertinent steps to pay Mr. Cantoral Benavides the amount of 12,157.20 Brazilian Reales as soon as possible and so as to fully comply with this point of the Judgment. b) Regarding the medical and psychological treatment 13. With regard to the medical and psychological treatment that must be provided to Ms. Gladys Benavides Lopez (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on reparations), the State confirmed that she has been a member (account N° 200-6-133354) of the SIS, the Integral Health System of Peru, since September 7, 2009, and her local health center is the 10 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2008, Considering Clause eleven, and Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause twenty.