6 representatives of the victim is due in connection with payment of compensation for moral damages. 17. The November 11, 2003 report by the State, in which it pointed out that “the Vocalía de Instrucción issued a judgment convicting Raúl Aurelio Talledo Valdivieso to four years in prison for the crime of abuse of authority in the case of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado”. It also reported that said judgment was appealed and its review was pending before the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. The State also informed the Court that Mr. Guevara Guerra had been declared a contumacious defendant. With respect to the pecuniary damages, it stated that Ministerial Order No 190-2003-JUS authorized acceptance and processing of the arbitration procedure. In this regard, the Arbitrators were instated on September 4, 2003, setting the respective rules for the development of the proceeding. Subsequently, on September 17, 2003, the application filed by Mr. Cesti Hurtado in the arbitration proceeding was forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office and answered on September 29, 2003. With respect to the interest on arrearages derived from payment of compensation for moral damages on April 2, 2003, the State pointed out that once the amount due was established, it would request payment of said amount by FEDADOI (supra Having Seen 5). Finally, the report asserted that “[a]ccording to the information supplied by the Judiciary, Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s pending cases ha[d] been set aside.” 18. The January 14, 2004 brief and its attachments, in which the victim submitted his comments on the report by the State, reiterating that “[t]here ha[d] not been full compliance with the May 31, 2001 Judgment.” He specifically pointed out that the “third investigation” regarding the same facts was still open before the Twenty-fourth Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that Mr. Cesti Hurtado continued to be considered a witness rather than an injured party in the proceedings against the former members of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. He also stated that payment of the interest on arrearages due to late payment of moral damages was still pending. Finally, he mentioned that an arbitration proceeding had begun, to establish the material damages. 19. The August 11, 2004 brief in which the State submitted information on compliance “with paragraph three of the operative section of the November 27, 2001 Judgment that interpreted the Judgment on Reparations” in the Cesti Hurtado case. It specifically pointed out that, once Ministerial Order No. 188-2003-JUS was issued, authorizing the Public Prosecutor’s Office to accept and process the arbitration, the parties reached an Arbitration Agreement. Peru added that, in his application, Mr. Cesti demanded US$ 23,778,350.57 (twenty-three million seven hundred and seventy-eight thousand three hundred and fifty United States dollars and fifty-seven cents), that the parties submitted evidence, that there was a hearing with oral reports, written reports and pleadings, and that the proceedings were in the stage prior to issuing the arbitrators’ decision. 20. The September 20, 2004 brief in which the victim submitted his comments on the latest report by the State and pointed out that the arbitrators had issued their award on September 14, 2004, and that this award was not yet definitive and that the parties had not yet expressed their acceptance. In said brief, he asked the Court to request information from the State regarding the budgetary item or special fund that would be used to comply with said award, and to do this in as expedite a manner as possible, since almost five years had passed since the judgment. He added that compliance with the arbitrators’ award would not constitute full