7 appointment of their members were unilaterally decided, without consulting them. Moreover, they expressed their disagreement with the resolution of CEE after considering, inter alia, that such body was totally made up by persons of trust of the State; that the decision of the CEE was not adopted within the term established by the Court; that the CEE did not listen to any of the 257 victims; and that the State did not establish a specific mechanism to provide the victims with competent legal advisory services, free of charge. In addition, they pointed out that the compensations were not established based on the specific circumstances of each one of the persons; that the compensation ordered by the CEE was not adequate and that it was neither according to the applicable domestic law; and that the compensation is the same that the one proposed by the State during the public hearing held at the merits stage of this case, which the Court had rejected. Moreover, they argued that the resolution does not reinstate the victims into the positions they occupied before the irregular and unjustified dismissal nor into any other position in the Congress or public administration; it does not order the repayment of the unpaid salaries; and it does not order the payment of a compensation to repair the irregular and unjustified dismissal. 15. That the Commission indicated that the term for the first body established to issue a final decision, which was of one year had expired and that the State had not complied with the Judgment to such effect. It also noted that the State had not proposed a mechanism to provide the victims with competent legal advisory services, free of charge. Then, the Commission expressed its concern as to the CEE and the sudden abandonment of the commission initially established by agreement, and asserted that there was no evidence has been furnished in order to allow evaluating whether the CEE is an independent and impartial body. Furthermore, the Commission observed that the CEE has made no significant progress and that there was not a level of satisfactory compliance regarding the measures adopted the guarantees that must exist in the proceeding and their effectiveness. 16. That, as a result of the facts above mentioned, the Court convened the parties to a private hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment, which was held on July 8, 2009 at its seat (supra Having Seen clause 14). 17. That this Court notes that, after having agreed with the common interveners the creation of a body, the State did not continue with that mechanism and set up, by means of a Supreme Decree, the CEE, in order to comply with operative paragraph four of the Judgment. Even though there was a disagreement between the victims’ representatives as to the composition of that first commission, the State failed to satisfactorily explain the reason why it did not continue with the procedure established by agreement. In addition, actually, operative paragraph four of the Judgment does not order that the composition of that body must be decided in common agreement with the victims or their representatives. According to such provision, to guarantee to the 257 victims access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse as a form of reparation, the State must set up a body with the characteristics that the Court shall analyze next: A. Independent and impartial body with powers to decide in a binding and final manner, whether or not the said persons were dismissed in a justified and regular manner from the Congress of the Republic. 18. That according to the Supreme Decree of July 19, 2008 by which the CEE was set up (supra Considering clause 10), this body has the power to "decide, in a final and binding manner" whether the persons were dismissed in a regular and justified way, and establish the respective legal consequences.