4 reinstated in two of these institutions, the Centro Educativo 2057 and the Escuela Nacional de Arte Dramático. She added, however, that she had not been reinstated in the Escuela Nacional de Arte Dramático under the same employment conditions she had enjoyed at the time she was apprehended, but through a contract for nonpersonal services with no eligibility for labor benefits, so that the State could terminate her whenever it so desired […]; even though she worked under the same conditions and with the same schedule as other faculty members at the national drama school, her salary had been cut by 50 percent. Finally, Mrs. Loayza Tamayo explained that, regarding reinstatement to her faculty position at the San Martín de Porres University, she "[had] received no reply as to the outcome of that procedure, and in fact, certain employees of the Ministry of Justice [had told her that] the State [could] not intervene in any private university." María Elena Loayza Tamayo reiterated the obligation of the State to "bring about [her] reinstatement to the Centro Universitario […] or any other public system, if necessary, with all due salary, benefits and pensions." Finally, Mrs. Loayza Tamayo explained that "...when I was a university teacher, I earned an average of US$500 in 1993, but today a professor hired with a 20-hour teaching load at San Martín de Porres University earns US$1200." Because she was hesitant to thwart any possibility of reinstatement to San Martín de Porres University after so much time had passed, Mrs. Loayza Tamayo informed the Court that she had "made no attempt to collect [her] benefits for years of service, that is, for the years [she] had worked at the university, from 1982 through February 6, 1993, the day [she] was seized." 8. That the Commission pointed out that "the judgment of the Court stated that remuneration must be calculated at present value." The Commission emphasized that "this measure of redress calls for present value, and that is what needs to be evaluated." 9. That the State added that "in this specific case, with the mediation of the Court, [it wanted] to work out a fair solution with a clear interpretation of what [it needed] to do and what [it would] do in this sense." 10. That the Memorandum of the Meeting (supra Having seen no. 12), states that the parties agreed "to hold a meeting in the city of Lima, Peru, within two months of this date [February 1, 2008], in which the agent of the State will inform Mrs. Loayza Tamayo of measures taken to comply with the matters discussed in [Operative points 1 and 2 of the judgment on reparations]." Moreover, the State undertook to "report […] on measures taken to incorporate [María Elena Loayza Tamayo] into the teaching service of a public institution in accordance with the provisions of the judgment on reparations and the orders of the Inter-American Court." * * * 11. That regarding the duty to ensure the victim's full retirement benefits, the State reported in the private hearing that "bearing in mind that Mrs. Loayza would be receiving an unemployment pension from the Ministry of Health under the system of Decree-Law 20,530, her right to a pension would be guaranteed." The State added that "Mrs. Loayza may also receive a pension under the system of Decree-Law 19,990 […] in her capacity as a teacher, so long [as] the national pension system authenticates her eligibility and that the period of employment [does] not include