15 Inter-American Court, prior to the rendering of the Judgment on merits and reparations (Nov. 24, 2006), petitioners put much more emphasis on Peru’s domestic-law provisions than on the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, which is the law applicable by this Court. In said Judgment, the Court ordered, inter alia, that the respondent State ensured that the injured parties enjoy the rights that had been violated, through the "effective access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse. To this end, it should establish, as soon as possible, an independent and impartial body with powers to decide, in a binding and final manner, whether or not the said persons were dismissed in a justified and regular manner from the Congress of the Republic, and to establish the respective legal consequences, including, if applicable, the relevant compensation based on the specific circumstances of each individual"46 (para. 148). 55. The fourth operative paragraph of said Judgment rendered by this Court adds, in fine, that "the final decisions of the body established for these effects must be adopted within one year of notification of this J udgment." Said Judgment was rendered by the Court on November 24, 2006. Over one year later, the case file before this Court contains no record that, as of the date hereof, such body has actually been set up. There is thus all the more reason for the concern expressed by the dismissed congressional employees in paragraph 7(a) of their request for Interpretation of Judgment, which has been unduly declared inadmissible in this decision by the Court. 56. The aforementioned state body to be created, whether arbitral or otherwise, is then, in my opinion, required to be a single-instance (to avoid undue delays), independent and impartial body, obviously enough, and certainly jurisdictional in nature. This is one further aspect that could and should have been clarified by the Court in this Judgment on Interpretation, even more so considering that, in its previous Judgment of Nov. 24, 2006, the Court made a vague renvoi to the domestic law of the State of Peru for the purposes of reparation. In any event, I dare nurture my confidence that respondent State, which has acted correctly in this Interpretation of Judgment proceeding (without contesting the brief submitted by petitioners) will, consistently with its highly respectable tradition of legal thought, strictly comply with the Judgment on merits and reparations rendered by this Court in the instant Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees. 57. Moreover, I will also express my concern over the stance taken by this Court – which, in something of a paradox, seems to have recently given too much freedom to respondent States to comply with certain forms of reparation through their preferred means or conduct. Underlying this stance is its questionable alignment with the untenable doctrine of the “obligations of means or conduct,” “rather than to ensure results” in this realm of human rights protection. 58. In the cas d'espèce, the Court found itself faced with a situation which, in its Judgment on merits and reparations, it characterized as one of legal uncertainty; however, all it did in this Judgment on Interpretation was perpetuate such situation of legal uncertainty to date, in a matter of jus cogens, not only formalities-wise but also in the substantive sense (i.e. the right to jurisdictional benefits). This is, without question, cause for concern. 59. Furthermore, Article 68(2) of the American Convention authorizes respondent States to execute “that part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages” in the respective countries in accordance with “domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the state." The Court does not seem to take sufficient consideration of the additional difficulties that might be faced by the beneficiaries of the reparations because of its permissive 46 . Emphasis added.