9 in favor of acquitted and dismissed persons in criminal proceedings be conducted de oficio and not by petition from the party.” 38. That the representatives observed that “nothing has been mentioned by the State in its communications on compliance, thus it is necessary that the [...] State inform on any administrative, judicial or legislative actions it has taken in this regard.” The Commission did not present observations. 39. That the Court declares that this point is pending compliance and, consequently, that the State must report, within the term established in the operative section of this Order, the results of the official letter sent by the Attorney General’s Office or any other measure conducted toward its fulfillment. * * * 40. That in relation to the State’s duty and that of Mr. Chaparro to submit to an arbitration procedure to establish the amounts corresponding to pecuniary damage (operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment), the State has not submitted any information. 41. That the representatives informed that they have agreed with the State to “make all necessary efforts to arrive at a friendly agreement,” and that the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has contracted an external consultant to determine the amount of the damages. On the other hand, they stated that “without detriment to the aforementioned efforts, while the parties are willing to arrive at a friendly solution, [...] the arbitration process [...] has not begun.” 42. That the Commission expressed its “concern” over the State’s lack of information. 43. That the Court declares that his paragraph of the Judgment is pending compliance, and, consequently, that the State must inform the Court, within the term established in the operative section of this Order, on all the measures it has adopted to fulfill it. * * * 44. That with regards to the payment of compensations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the State indicated that it paid Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo on August 19, 2008. The State attached supporting documentation indicating that a deposit of US$352.940,47 (three hundred and fifty-two thousand nine hundred forty with 47/100 US dollars) was made on the aforementioned date to the account belonging to Mr. Chaparro’s wife, and a deposit of US$91.176,77 (ninety one thousand one hundred seventy-six with 77/100 US dollars) was made in Mr. Lapo’s and his wife’s joint account.15 45. That the representatives expressed their “satisfaction with the payment of the amounts awarded in the Judgment within the established term.” However, they observed that Mr. Chaparro has not been awarded the amount corresponding to the late fees ordered by the Court in paragraph 245 of the Judgment. 46. That the Commission evaluated “the advances made in terms of the payments due to Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo and is awaiting information on the completion of this obligation.” 15 Official Letters No. 148-DNF-2008 and 149-DNF-2008 issued by the Financial Director of the Attorney General’s Office, on August 21, 2008 (file on monitoring of compliance, Volume I, folios 296 and 297), and details of the electronic transfer from the Central Bank of Ecuador to the bank accounts of Cecilia Merced Aguirre Mollet and Yenny Díaz and Freddy Lapo (file on monitoring of compliance, Volume I, folios 237 and 238).