5 d) on March 1, 2007, a work meeting was held with the majority of the interested parties4 who provided their proposal [with regards to their fees],” and manifested that the regulated professional fees of the experts and technical consultant “are absolutely reasonable and should be paid with no acquittances.” However, “to achieve compliance with the provisions of Decree [No.] 99/06” the attorneys present in this meeting expressed that they would accept “a partial acquittance of 20% [of their fees]”. The minutes of that meeting indicate that the professionals “declared that if in conformity with the amount […] and upon receipt of the payment, they will immediately request the lifting of the precautionary measures decreed against José María Cantos.” 12. That the representative indicated that the State’s report on that “they are working with the group of professionals who intervened in the defense of the State” to establish a fair amount for the fees, is “surprising”, not only because of “the delay” in reaching an agreement, since more than 5 years have passed from the delivery of the Judgment, but also because “the State reported on the recommendations of its own employees, which state that there is agreement on the fairness of the proposals by all intervening parties, including the State of Argentina.” 13. That in the observations of November 15, 2007 and May 21, 2008, the Commission took cognizance of the State’s reports on the meeting held to comply with the Court’s order, and indicated that there has been a lack of advances on this issue since the State report of October 1, 2007. Lastly, it indicated that it would await information on the steps taken to comply with this obligation. 14. That the Court values the State’s reports on the meeting held to establish at a fair amount the professional fees of the interested parties, to comply with operative paragraph two of the Judgment. This Court takes cognizance that the State has not reported other advances on compliance with this obligation since October 1, 2007, although it submitted two reports after that date. At that time it presented several documents related to the work meeting held, in which there seemed to be an agreement among the attorneys regarding the fees. Consequently, this Court believes that the State must perform all actions necessary to comply with this reparation and report on the advances of its implementation. This is mandatory since paragraph 74 of the Judgment orders that the reparation measures ordered must be implemented within six months of their notification, and it has been over six years from that date and compliance with this point is still pending, with no State reports thereon. * * * 15. That with regards to operative paragraph three of the Judgment, on the obligation to assume the payment of the fees and expenses of all experts and attorneys engaged by the State and the Province of Santiago del Estero, under the conditions established in operative paragraph two of the Judgment, on February 2, 2009 the State 4 According to the minutes of the meeting, submitted by the State, the following people were present at the meeting: “Drs. Jorge Jáuregui and Santiago Bargallo Beade, of their own free will, and representing Claudia Reston, the heirs of Raúl Huidobro, María Eugenia Galíndez, Carlos Raúl Ambrosio, the heirs of Manuel Luis de Palacios, Guillermo Heisinger, Julio González and Cesar Graziani, Drs. Estanislao González Bergez and Daniel Nigro, of their own free will and representing Norma Vicente Soutullo, Dr. María Eugenia Giambra representing María Josefina Zabala; Drs. Juan González Moras and Elea Cristina Peliche, representing Mario Kestelboim, and Dr. Jorge Albertsen representing the heirs of José Osvaldo D´Alessio”. In the same minutes “it was recorded that Drs. Washington Inca Cardoso and Alejandro Cáceres Llamosas did not respond to the summons”.