25 the corresponding documents for the payment [had] not been duly presented until February 20, 2008,” and that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice would settle the interests for delayed payments through an administrative act. That is, it acknowledges the interests on delayed payments from the date of the expiration of the term for the payment of the compensation, that is February 27, 2007, and up to the following six months as established by Law 446. 63. That the representatives mentioned that the State, in Order No. 825 of April 3, 2008, indicated that the beneficiaries had not requested their compensation in the terms of Decree 768 of 1993 and that therefore it would not acknowledge in its settlement the interests on delayed payments. They recalled that the Judgment had ordered the State to pay, within a one-year term computed as of the notification of the Judgment, and that the interests on delayed payments that should be paid when the amounts of money were not paid within that term should be considered at the “bank interest on delayed payments in force in Colombia.” 64. That the Commission considered that the State had incurred in delay and that it had erroneously interpreted that the payment was made when the deposit was made in a savings account of the Banco Agrario de Colombia, despite the fact that the beneficiaries of the compensations had not yet received the amounts that corresponded to them. 65. That this Tribunal points out that, in the terms of the Judgment, the obligation to comply with a specific measure of reparation is effective as of the moment of the notification itself of the Judgment, regardless of the term granted for those effects. In this sense, upon issuing the Judgment the Court assumes that the State will, in good faith, carry out the processes and make the necessary efforts to comply with it within the mentioned terms. Consequently, with regard to the payments ordered, if the State does not comply with that stated within the mentioned term, it incurs in default and shall pay the corresponding interests on delayed payments. 66. That the Court is aware of the diversity of processes, proceedings, and administrative steps that may be necessary at a domestic level to make the compensatory payments ordered in the Judgment, as well as of the subsequent obstacles they may cause. According to that stated in paragraphs 286 and 294 of the Judgment, the term established for the State to comply with the obligations of payment ordered was of a year computed as of the notification of the same or, in its case, as of the moment in which other beneficiaries were to come before the competent authorities and within the terms established to this effect. At the end of that period, the State incurs in default and shall pay the corresponding interests on delayed payments on the amounts owed to the beneficiaries. As has been stated repeatedly by this Tribunal, and as it results from paragraph 291 of the Judgment, the State cannot fail to comply with that stated in the Judgment based on its domestic law, reason for which the mentioned regulations cannot be put forward (supra Considering Clause 62) as a reason to not comply with the pecuniary obligations in their whole. 67. That in the present case from the information provided it could be concluded that the amount included in the Certificate of Budgetary Availability of July 25, 2007 corresponds to the amount deposited on December 27, 2007, which was liquidated on March 12, 2008. However, it was not until the mentioned order No. 825 of April 3, 2008 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice that the distribution per beneficiary of the liquidation was specified along with the amount that corresponded to each of them. In effect, it is not until May 2008 that the payments started becoming effective.