9 also ordered the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to Daniel Tibi, Beatrice Baruet, Sarah Vachon, Jeanne Camila Vachon, Lisianne Judith Tibi and Valerian Edouard Tibi, in the terms of paragraphs 268 to 270 of the judgment. Lastly, it had ordered the payment of costs and expenses in favor of Mr. Tibi. The State substantiated the said payments with processing orders and journal vouchers. 22. That, in the observations forwarded on April 12, 2007, the representatives assessed positively the State’s partial compliance with the obligation to pay monetary compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims. However, they stated that this compensation was paid eight and nine months outside the time frame stipulated by the Court and accordingly the State should pay the interest resulting from the delay in payment, “as the Court had established in its judgment.” In addition, they indicated that the State had not paid the whole amount corresponding to the compensation for pecuniary damage established in subparagraph (b) of the fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment, amounting to €82,850.00 (eighty-two thousand eight hundred and fifty euros) (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). In a communication of November 17, 2008, the representatives indicated that on April 25, 2008, the State had paid Mr. Tibi the sum of US$117,137.55 (one hundred and seventeen thousand one hundred and thirty-seven United States dollars and fifty-five cents), as pecuniary compensation for the property that had been seized; that is, the State paid €73,210.97 (seventy three thousand two hundred and ten euros and ninety-seven cents). They also affirmed that “the amounts indicated were paid two and four years after the Court had delivered the judgment and, therefore, they had generated interest on arrears […].” Consequently, they asked the Court to require the State to pay the difference owed for the property of Daniel Tibi that had been seized and the interest on arrears on the compensation. 23. That, in its communication of December 29, 2008, the Commission stated that it “appreciated the positive steps taken by the State and hoped that the obstacles to making the total payment could be overcome as soon as possible, because the time granted for this had expired a long time ago.” 24. That, according to the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that the State paid the compensation for pecuniary damage to Daniel Tibi and Beatrice Baruet, in accordance with the fourteenth operative paragraph, subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the judgment. According to the representatives, since this payment was made after the time period indicated in the judgment, interest had been generated that the State has not paid. Consequently, the Court finds that the State has complied with the fourteenth operative paragraph, subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the judgment. As regards the corresponding interest owed by the State according to the representatives, the Court will refer to this below (infra considering paragraph 27). 25. That, regarding the fourteenth operative paragraph, subparagraph (b), concerning compensation for the seizure of Mr. Tibi’s property, the State has not complied fully with the corresponding payment because, according to information presented by the representatives, the State has not paid all the €82,850.00 (eighty-two thousand eight hundred and fifty euros) ordered by this Court, or the corresponding interest that has been generated. Accordingly, the Court finds that the State must refer to the observations of the representatives and also provide information on the measures taken to comply with this operative paragraph. 26. That, despite the above, the Court appreciates positively the effort made by the State to pay the victims the non-pecuniary compensation and the costs and expenses of the proceedings on June 21 and July 31, 2006, respectively. That, based on the foregoing, the