11 hundred and seventy two thousand dollars of the United States of America with forty three cents] for the complete payment of the compensations, in the General Expense Budget of the year 2010. Likewise, it presented the report of the First Instance Court in Civil and Commercial Matters of the Twelfth Duty of Asunción regarding the payments made, the name of the persons who received them, and the existing balance in the account. Regarding the payment system mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding, it clarified that in obeying the statements made by the victims, in what refers to their request that payment be made “as soon as possible” it asked the Treasury to “offer continuance to the processes tending to pay, through judicial means, the amount assigned in the concept of that compensation, since a change in the procedure at this time would imply a considerable delay, until the administrative mechanisms have been established.” 40. That the representatives pointed out that the funds put at the disposal of the beneficiaries were drawn against a judicial account to be distributed through a civil court, requiring that the beneficiaries present themselves with their individual attorneys in order to make the payment effective. 41. That at the public hearing for monitoring compliance the representatives acknowledged the realization of partial payments, but they observed that “the victims are still subject to additional charges” for the collection of the amounts owed through the court. They recalled that the State undertook through the Memorandum of Understanding to change the procedure used for the payment of the compensations. Additionally, with regard to the request to include the remaining balance in the 2010 budget, they observed that the State has informed of this type of requests to the Treasury “since they started to comply [with this obligation] in installments,” without a subsequent effective payment of the totality of that owed. They recalled that the State shall include in the balance to be paid the interests accrued due to the delay in the payment of the amounts owed. Therefore, they asked that the Court order the State to fully comply with the present obligation within a one-year term. 42. That the Commission considered that compliance with the pecuniary obligations has not been effective or efficient. It added that taking into account that the payments were not made within the one-year term established by the Court, it should have paid the interests on loan arrears stated in the Judgment. It considered it important that the documents that prove the complete execution of this obligation be presented as soon as possible. 43. That at the public hearing for monitoring compliance the Commission requested that the State present documents that could prove that “the inclusion of this pending balance in the 2010 budget is guaranteed as well as […] the amount pending” payment. 44. That the Court takes note of the list of amounts paid and the beneficiaries that received them, presented by the State at the hearing for monitoring compliance. 45. That the Tribunal observes that the State is complying with this reparation measure through the partial payment of the compensations. However, said payments were made outside of the term established in the Judgment and therefore the State owes the corresponding interests on loan arrears as of the month of September 2005,