Court’s rulings. The representative pointed out that what the State “must do is provide the relevant resources by way of the entity with the jurisdiction to do so.” The representative insisted that Peru is merely “[m]aking arrangements, requesting information, and carrying out coordination [activities] that, a year and a half after [the Judgment’s issuance], do not lead towards the outcome sought by [...] this Court[, but rather] the contrary.” 17. The representative also stressed that the State was subordinating fulfillment of its pending victim payment obligations to the provisions of the Budget Law for the Public Sector and the General Law of the National Budgetary System, which attribute the proposal of proposing a timeline for payment that can last up to five years to the public entity facing the obligation. Likewise, the representative pointed out that a bill that supposedly would have the same effect. The aforementioned bill establishes the "measures to effectuate debt obligations from budgetary specification sheets that derive from judicial judgments on a res judicata basis as well as from definitive administrative resolutions.” 18. For its part, the Inter-American Commission found that it is the State’s obligation to adopt the measures necessary to prevent the repetition of the patterns of denials of justice that led to the Inter-American proceeding during the monitoring compliance with the Judgment stage. Furthermore, in June 2010, the Commission declared that, up until that point, the State had not provided updated information in follow-up to steps it reported to have taken in October 2009, nor has it made specific reference to the steps it has taken to overcome the restrictions imposed by its budgetary laws. Therefore, the Commission requests that the Court order the State to comply with the judgments of the Peruvian authorities “as soon as possible” and to present updated and specific information on the measures taken in this regard. 19. The Court recalls that in its Judgment it ordered the State “to fully comply with the Constitutional Court of Peru’s judgments of October 21, 1997, and January 26, 2001, concerning the reimbursement, within a reasonable time, of unpaid accruals from the period of April 1993 to October 2002.”9 In this regard, the Court found that “the prolonged and unjustified nonobservance of the judgments of the Constitutional Court has given rise to a violation of the rights to judicial protection and private property of the 273 victims in the present case, which would not have occurred if these judgments had been complied with in a timely and complete manner.” 10 The Court also held that full compliance with the aforementioned judgments must take place “fully respecting and guaranteeing the victims’ right to receive due payment within a reasonable period of time, taking into account that more than 11 and 8 years have passed, respectively, since the issuance of the first and last judgment of the Constitutional Court” by the date on which this Judgment was handed down.11 the Office of the Comptroller General to the Ministry of Economy and Finance requesting that they provide additional resources to enable it to comply with the Judgment. 9 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, Operative Paragraph 6. 10 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 138. 11 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 138.