5 delivered by the Court in its Order of November 20, 2009. At a later date, they stated that on March 31, 2010, they received a new communication from the Public Prosecutor reiterating the request because the representatives of the victims were required to designate their representatives for the “Special Commission,” but they specified that “the Commission will be composed, now not of four, but of five members: two designated by the State (one by the Congress of the Republic and one by the Ministry of Justice), two by the representatives of the victims, and the fifth –set to preside over the Commission– would be decided by both parties by means of a mutual agreement.” On April 7, the representatives of the victims communicated to the Prosecutor General the designation of their two representatives for the aforementioned Commission. The State also named its two representatives on April 9, 2010. Also, on April 20, 2010, the Special Commission was officially set up and the President was designated, who accepted the position in August of 2010. In that same month, the rules of the “Special Commission” were approved and since then, various meetings have been held within the framework thereof; it has agreed to discuss criteria for reparations; it has requested information from Congress regarding the situation of each victim, and public hearings have been convened so victims are able to personally express what they deem pertinent, as well as to raise issues and to propose their own criteria for reparations. 9. Meanwhile, the Inter-American Commission considered that the decision to form a new “Special Commission” in charge of monitoring compliance with judgments “constitutes a notable advance in the prolonged process of compliance.” Also, the Commission noted that “the time period to create an independent body, and within which said body would adopt final decisions, has concluded and there is no prospect that the obligation established by the Court will be put into practice and resolved within a reasonable timeframe.” Regarding the means to offer free legal advice to the damaged party in the present case, the Commission highlighted the lack of information regarding the form in which the assigned public defenders can participate in the defense of the interests of the victims before the “Special Commission.” 10. In its previous Order (supra Having Seen 5), the Court emphasized the characteristics of the body to be created by the State to comply with the provisions of operative paragraph four of the Judgment of the aforementioned Order to determine the rights of the victims. On this occasion, the Court valued that the State and the representatives had begun to form a new “Special Commission” that would be in charge of determining the corresponding legal consequences, and when necessary, the due compensation for each of the victims, having already determined that the victims were dismissed unfairly and unjustifiably from Congress. Such “Special Commission,” according to the information of the interveners, had already begun to operate. Bearing in mind the State obligation should be a fast and simple recourse, whose final decisions must be adopted within one year of notification of the Judgment, and in light of the order issued one year ago, the Court hopes that the agreed upon and established procedure comes to a positive conclusion as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Tribunal values the designation of the public defenders to give legal advice to the victims and to request information from the State about the form in which this means will be implemented. A.2) Payment of non-pecuniary damages 11. Regarding the payment of the amounts set as non-pecuniary damages to 257 victims ( operative paragraph five of the Judgment), the State only went so far as to inform about the procedures and communications carried out during 2009 before the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economy and Finance, among other public instances, to achieve compliance. 12. The common interveners manifested that the State did not provide for the payment of the indemnities within the Law of Budget of 2009, even though during the hearing it committed to settle the debt by no later than December 31, 2009. They highlighted that the State has not complied, despite the existence of several requirements that have been created by the Ombudsman’s Office for such purposes, and the judicial requirements and sanctions that the Judicial Branch has imposed on the Ministry of Justice, as part of the