65 must be reimbursed within 90 days of notification of this judgment. G. Method of complying with the payments ordered 230. The State shall make the payments of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses established in this judgment directly to the person indicated herein, within one year of notification of this judgment in accordance with the following paragraphs. 231. If the beneficiary is deceased or dies before he receives the respective compensation, this shall be delivered directly to his heirs, pursuant to the applicable domestic law. 232. The State shall comply with its monetary obligations by payment in United States dollars or the equivalent in Peruvian currency, using the exchange rate in force on the New York Stock Exchange (United States of America), on the day before payment to make the respective calculation. 233. If, for reasons that can be attributed to the beneficiary of the compensation or his heirs, it is not possible to pay the amounts established within the time frame indicated, the State shall deposit the said amounts in his favor in a deposit account or certificate in a solvent Peruvian financial institution, in United States dollars, and in the most favorable financial conditions permitted by banking law and practice. If the corresponding compensation is not claimed after ten years, the sums shall be returned to the State with the interest accrued. 234. The amounts established in this judgment as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses shall be delivered to the persons indicated in full, as established in this judgment, without any deductions arising from possible taxes or charges. 235. If the State should fall in arrears, including in the reimbursement of disbursements to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, it shall pay interest on the amount owing corresponding to banking interest on arrears in the Republic of Peru. IX OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES, Unanimously: 1. To reject the objections filed by the State concerning control of legality in relation to the Admissibility Report of the Commission, the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and the lack of competence of the Commission, pursuant to paragraphs 17 and 18 of this judgment. 2. To reject the objection filed by the State concerning the inclusion of Article 16 of the Convention in the Merits Report, pursuant to paragraphs 20 to 23 of this judgment. to choose a category and, in this specific case, why it had chosen the category “PS.” Also, as it had no information on what the item of miscellaneous transportation expenses referred to, the State asked the Court to explain how it calculated this item, and how it had applied its calculation in this specific case. In a communication of May 2, 2017 (CIDH-322-17 of April 27, 2017), the Court’s Secretariat responded to the State’s observations (merits file, ff. 795-798).