10 35. That despite the foregoing, the Court observes that the State has failed to address all the aspects of operative paragraph fifteen of the Judgment, as required; in particular, it has failed to furnish information on the education imparted in state intelligence agencies. Furthermore, the reported information omits reference to how the Judgment issued in the instant case has been incorporated as mandatory material in the training courses offered in security forces institutions. Therefore, the Court considers that the State has partly complied with this obligation. The State is then required to submit updated and detailed information in relation to the aspects not covered by the reports, in particular, those aspects concerning the state intelligence agencies. * * * Payment of compensations and reimbursement of costs and expenses 36. That in relation to the payment of damages and compensations ordered in favor of the victims and their next of kin, as well as the reimbursement of the costs and expenses to the representatives (operative paragraphs sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of the Judgment,) the State informed that the Ministry of Justice had conducted the necessary proceedings aimed at gathering the resources through the Oficina General de Economía y Desarrollo (Finance and Development General Office) (OGED,) the Fondo de Administración del Dinero Ilícitamente Obtenido en Perjuicio del Estado (Fund for the Administration of Money Obtained Illicitly to the Detriment of the State) (FEDADOI), and the Ministry of Economy and Finance, but that the necessary measures to allocate in the budget the money to pay compensations and reimburse costs and expenses had not been taken. Subsequently, it reported that it had authorized the transfer of US$90,000.00 to the Ministry of Justice to pay pending reparations as pecuniary damage in favor of Antonia Pérez-Velásquez, Andra Gisela Ortiz-Perea, Alejandrina Raida Cóndor-Sáez and Dina Flor Melania Pablo-Meza, which was effectively made on May 12, 2009. 37. That the representatives confirmed that payment of US$90,000.00 as pecuniary damage in favor of some relatives was effectively made and verified payment by minutes of delivery of May 12, 2009. Nonetheless, they observed that the State had failed to mention that the whole group of relatives had been paid the compensations for pecuniary damage and reimbursed the costs and expenses as ordered. Additionally, they pointed out that the judgment of April 8, 2008, rendered in judicial proceedings No. 03-2003 “directed that the convicted defendants should pay, jointly and severally with the State, as civil reparation, the compensations ordered by the Court;” therefore, the next of kin filed an appeal for annulment, which is up to date pending resolution, based on the rationale that, notwithstanding any individual criminal liability, the international liability rests solely with the State. For this reason, the representatives concluded that the State had failed to fully comply with this operative paragraph and required detailed information on the coordinating actions taken to fully comply with all the payment obligations as soon as practicable. 38. That the Commission expressed concerns about the lack of effective action in relation to this obligation “after the deadline set by the Court has long expired.” Therefore, it is still waiting that, as soon as possible, the proceedings “to allocate the necessary resources” are conducted and the information on the actions taken in furtherance of the compliance with these operative paragraphs of the Judgment is submitted.