4 obtained a precautionary measure whereunder an attachment was executed before Urgency Executive Order No. 030-2005 was issued;” moreover, the State asserted that “[p]ayment of damages to [Mr. Cesti-Hurtado] out of such additional funds would have entailed an undue payment under the dual payment system,” and that “[o]n appeal, [the attachment was later] annulled by the Primera Sala Superior Civil de Lima (First Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals in and for Lima) along with other order [sic] of the Lower Court based on the unenforceability of the precautionary measure […] and the prosecutor’s office has taken action to investigate the alleged commission of the crime of malfeasance in judicial office. 8. That the representatives pointed out that the additional funds referred to by the State “[i]ncluded the unpaid balance, but did not provide for the amount paid by the Lower Court [sic]; therefore, no dual payment [would have been] made and the State would not be prevented from paying the balance.” Furthermore, the representatives stated that in the communications sent by the State to the Court “[t]he State pointed out that payment was not made because collection judicial proceedings had been already instituted, in an attempt to hold [Mr.] Cesti liable for non-payment of the balance.” To this effect, the representatives highlighted that in spite of the fact that on February 26, 2007, they met with the Ministry of Justice and other officers and agreed that the parties would abandon the proceedings and accept the payment made afterwards, on March 28, 2007, the Attorney General requested the Lower Court to restitute the judicial certificate [of the attached money] while “[a]ccording to the agreement reached at the meeting, the balance due to [Mr.] Cesti would be paid out of such certificate directly by the Lower Court once the State and the victim have signed an out-of-court settlement which, in turn, would put an end to the proceedings.” 9. That the Inter-American Commission asserted that “[s]uch a situation entails a serious breach of the orders of the Court and the fundamental principles of the InterAmerican System and reiterates that it is imperative for the State, under the pacta sunt servanda doctrine, to guarantee the adoption of any measures necessary to fully comply with the Judgment of the Court” and “[t]o refrain from taking actions aimed at frustrating the measures of reparations so ordered, the compliance of which had been duly notified to the Court.” * * * 10. That, as regards payment of default interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage, neither the State nor the representatives have submitted any information. 11. That the Inter-American Commission asserted that “[n]o updated information allowing to prove effective payment has been furnished” and that “[t]he foregoing in conjunction with the fact that the term originally set by the Court has fully expired, the method of compliance therewith, the imminent need to redress the violations caused to the aggravated party and the express request by the Court to be informed thereof.” * * *