3 a) Regarding the State’s obligation to pay Mr. Juan Carlos Bayarri the amounts set as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as for expenses and fees incurred (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment). 7. The State reported that on “November 26, 2009, the full amount set as compensatory damages [as well as expenses and fees] [was] transfer[red] to a bank account that Mr. Juan Carlos Bayarri [had] informed the authorities of.” The State submitted a memorandum from the Ministry of Economics and Public Finance to the Tribunal. In this memorandum, addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Relations, it stated that USD 295,000 (two-hundred and ninety-five thousand US dollars) had been deposited into a bank account belonging to Mr. Bayarri “in accordance with the information [he] denounced.” 8. The representatives manifested that on December 1, 2009, “[Mr. Bayarri] was paid compensation [...] equivalent to [... USD]295,000; that is, two-hundred and ninety-five thousand US dollars.” 9. The Inter-American Commission expressed compliance with the present operative paragraph. its appreciation for the State’s 10. In view of the foregoing, and given that there is no dispute between the parties, the Tribunal deems that the State has complied with the obligation to pay Mr. Bayarri the amounts set as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as for expenses and fees incurred, in accordance with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment. To this end, the Court notes that this obligation has been complied with within the period set forth in the Judgment. b) Regarding the obligation to provide Mr. Juan Carlos Bayarri with the free medical care he requires immediately and for as long as necessary (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment). 11. The State reported on “various arrangements made to coordinate the provision of the required medical services.” Likewise, the State manifested that “the steps to obtain the necessary funds for [Mr. Bayarri’s] dental care [had] already [been] approved [...], which [would] enable the dental issue to be resolved as soon as possible, allowing [the State] to move on to the benefits that are still outstanding.” 12. The representatives manifested that “the State had already begun the dental treatment.” Furthermore, they stated that even though other medical treatment was still pending, it was agreed, together with Mr. Bayarri, that said treatments would be undertaken “upon conclusion of the dental care, given that it would be inconvenient to undergo both treatments concurrently.” 13. The Inter-American Commission remarked that it “acknowledged the information presented by Mr. Bayarri,” and that it appreciated “that the dental treatment had already begun.” Furthermore, it requested that the Court oblige the State to present “specific and up-to-date information on the follow-up and continuity of this issue.” Clause six; and, Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause six.