-22aspects as restitution, repair of the harm caused and compensation for material and moral damages.98 On November 4, 2008, the First Temporary Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the remedy of annulment because, although the civil complainants questioned the civil redress amount requested by the representative of the Public Ministry, they did so after the period established in Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 99 On December 24, 2008, the conviction of July 23, 2008 was reaffirmed. 100 83. On March 4, 2009, this decision was notified to the General Headquarters of the Peruvian Army.101 84. On April 27, 2009, the petitioners requested that the judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court order the Army to pay the civil redress.102 On the following day, the Court reaffirmed its resolution of March 4, 2009, which ordered the payment by the Army.103 The request to order such payment was repeated by the petitioners in June and on August 4, 2009.104 On August 5, 2009, the Court once again requested the payment of civil redress by the Army105 and, on the same date, the petitioners again reiterated that the payment be made by the civilly responsible third party.106 85. On November 30, 2009, the Office of the Treasurer of the General Office of Economy of the Army sent the court a judicial deposit in the amount of 5,000 New Soles for Mr. Bejarano Laura, and 15,000 New Soles on behalf of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta in payment of civil redress.107 On December 15, 2009, the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court notified Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza, father of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta, that the General Office of Economy had deposited the amount of 15,000 New Soles in his favor.108 Cf. Grounds of the appeal of annulment, presented by the civil complainant on Augst 6, 2008, against the judgment of July 23, 2008 in the terms of what is established for the concept of reparation (evidence file, folios 66 to 75). 98 Cf. Decision of the First Temporary Criminal Chamber R.N. Nº 4370-2008 of November 4, 2008 (evidence file, folios 315 to 318). 99 Cf. Decision of the National Criminal Chamber in file N° 13-06 of December 24, 2008, Secretariat of the Mesa de Partes (evidence file, folios 319 to 321). 100 Cf. Written communication N° 2005-00069-0-4TO.JPSP of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court of March 4, 2009 (evidence file, folios 322 to 323). 101 Cf. Communication of APRODEH and FIDH addressed to the judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court, received April 27, 2009 (evidence file, folios 324 to 326). 102 Cf. Decsion of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court in file 2005-00069 of April 28, 2009 (evidence file, folios 3121 to 3122). 103 Cf. Communication of APRODEH and FIDH addressed to the judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court, in the record of the implementation of the judgment (evidence file, folios 327 to 328) and communication of APRODEH and FIDH addressed to the judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court, received on August 4, 2009 (evidence file,, folios 329 to 330). 104 Cf. Judicial notification of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court of August 5, 2009, received by APRODEH on August 21, 2009 (evidence file, folios 331 to 332). 105 Cf. Communication of APRODEH and FIDH addressed to the judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court, received on November 19, 2009 (evidence file, folios 333 to 334). 106 Cf. Written communication N° 097327 OGECOE / E-9c.19.04 and written communication N° 097326 OGECOE / E-9c.19.04 of the Treasury Office of the General Office of Economy of the Army, dated November 30, 2009 (evidence file, folios 3135 to 3139). 107 Cf. Judicial notification issued by the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court to Mr. Tarazona Hinostrosa, dated December 15, 2009 (evidence file, folios 335 to 336). 108