the Special Administration Fund of money obtained illegally to the detriment of the State (FEDADOI), to arrange the payment of the financial reparations ordered by the Court […], requesting that, for the case of Gómez Palomino, the sum of US$60,000 be budgeted.” In this regard, it indicated that it was “awaiting the response, and expressed the State’s willingness to comply with the said international judgment.” Furthermore, it advised that, “[b]ased on the aspects pending compliance, official notes had been sent to the different entities involved in compliance with the international judgment [and that] internal coordination was underway in order to comply with [this judgment].” In this regard, the State indicated that “[w]hen [it had] the corresponding information, [it would] advise the Court of the progress made and extent of compliance with the international judgment.” 17. Thus, the Court notes that, first, the State indicated that when it had the corresponding information it would report on the progress made and extent of compliance with the Judgment. Following the extension that was granted, two repeated requests, and when the time frame for the presentation of the supplementary State report had expired (supra having seen paragraph 5), the State merely indicated that it had been adopting the pertinent measures to ensure full compliance with the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 6). 18. Subsequently, in its report of January 30, 2013 (supra having seen paragraph 9), the State affirmed, among other mattes, that the aspect of the Judgment relating to healthrelated reparations “is met with access to the Comprehensive Health Insurance System (SIS), through which it is possible to access the services determined in the Universal Health Insurance (AUS) and the Strategic Universal Insurance Plan (PEAS),” and that, on January 21, 2013, a note had been sent to the Archbishop Loayza Hospital indicating that it “should provide full support to Margarita Palomino Buitrón who will be undergoing an operation.” 19. For their part, the representatives advised that Margarita Palomino Buitrón had undergone a series of medical tests in the Archbishop Loayza National Hospital (central Lima), in order to undergo surgery in this hospital. However, the respective costs had been assumed by the interested party herself, because they were not covered by the Comprehensive Health Insurance System (SIS), given that, as she was told, she should have been treated in the María Auxiliadora National Hospital in the district of San Juan de Miraflores (southern part of Lima). Consequently, they had asked the State to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the expenses of the operation required by Mrs. Palomino Buitrón were covered by the SIS. Furthermore, the representatives advised that, on April 25, 2011, during the criminal proceedings (Case file No. 81-2007) against those responsible for the disappearance and death of Santiago Gómez Palomino, the Office of the Second Special Superior Prosecutor for Crimes involving the Corruption of Officials filed charges against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and eight other accused for the crimes of forced disappearance and homicide aggravated by cruelty. In this regard, the Second Criminal Chamber found that there were no grounds for the crime of homicide aggravated by cruelty; consequently, on September 22, 2011, it decided to refer the case file to the Supreme Prosecutor so that the latter would rule in this regard. On November 24, 2011, the Supreme Criminal Prosecutor had dismissed the decision consulted. In view of this ruling, the Second Special Superior Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against all the accused. In turn, on January 17, 2012, the Second Criminal Chamber decided to declare that there were grounds to open oral proceedings against the accused for the crimes of forced disappearance and homicide aggravated by premeditation and cruelty to begin on March 27, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the said Chamber decided, among other matters, to annul the indictment in order to return the case file to the Public Prosecution Service “for it to rule on the issue of the participation of the [State as] a third party with civil responsibility,” returning the proceedings to that procedural stage, since it had not been notified of the 7