9 Judgment in the official gazette and made the radio broadcast on the Paraguayan Radio Nacional, in 2006. 40. That the representatives indicated that the State had not forwarded a copy of the publication that it alleged it had made and that “[n]o evidence” of the radio broadcast had been forwarded. 41. That the Commission indicated that the State had failed to present detailed information on this aspect. 42. That, according to the notes of the Secretariat of September 18, 2006, April 25 and August 23, 2007, the State should forward a legible copy of the publications it alleges it has made and, with regard to the radio broadcasts, the respective written record of the radio station used, the time of the broadcasts, the number of broadcasts, and the language used. Likewise, the State should forward a recording of one of the broadcasts, a transcription of this and, if it is in a language other than Spanish, a translation of the transcription. 43. That the State has not provided the information indicated in the preceding paragraph, so that it is pertinent to request it to present this information. * * * 44. That, regarding the payment of the compensation established by the Court for pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses (thirteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State advised that, on May 10, 2007, it had delivered the sum of Gs.13,000,000 (thirteen million guaranis) and, on June 1, 2007, it had delivered the sums of Gs.180,000,000 (one hundred and eighty million guaranis) and Gs.90,000,000 (ninety million guaranis). 45. That the representatives confirmed the payments of US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) for pecuniary damage and US$45,000.00 (forty-five thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses. However, they indicated that “these payments were made after the time allotted in the Judgment,” so that “the interest on arrears of 3% established by the Central Bank of Paraguay” was applicable. Consequently, according to the representatives, the State continued to owe the sum of US$592.00 (five hundred and ninety-two United States dollars) for pecuniary damage and US$16,642.00 (sixteen thousand six hundred and forty-two United States dollars) for costs and expenses. 46. That the Commission had taken into account the payments made by the State. 47. That the Court finds that the State has paid the amounts established in the Judgment for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses and considers that the State should comment on the alleged late payment and the supposed interest on arrears that is applicable. * * * 48. That the representatives asserted that “the lack of a spokesperson for the State is one of the obstacles to compliance with the Judgment […]. There is no single body that is in charge of this case and which executes and coordinates measures designed to comply with the Judgment […]. In many communications, [they had noted] that the State continually referred to the Legislature as a separate entity,