[…], noting that the last date to make the payment […] for costs and expenses in this case expired inevitably on March 16, [2005].” Lastly, the State advised that, on March 28, 2005, it had asked the Director of the General Administrative Office that […], “considering […] Law No. 28.411 (General Law of the National Budget System), with regard to payment of judgments, the budgeted amount of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) be deposited in the bank account of the Ministry of Justice, so that the amount is not returned to the Public Treasury.” In addition, on December 28, 2004, and on December 15, 2005, the State asked the Inter-American Commission to “determine the identity of the beneficiaries who should receive the amount for costs and expenses.” On May 6, 2011, the State reported that it had consulted the lawyer of the Ministry of Justice “about the procedure for the reimbursement of costs and expenses” in this case “in view of the process of reparation that is being carried out at the national level in cases of terrorism.” 50. The representatives asked whether the expenses incurred by FASIC could be paid directly to this organization, “because they considered it difficult that the next of kin make the reimbursement, since they have very limited resources and, over the years, the relationship with them has become less than fluid.” 51. On January 10, 2006, the Inter-American Commission indicated that “the four next of kin” who should be beneficiaries of the amount for costs and expenses are Jaime Castillo Navarrete (Jaime Francisco Sebastian Castillo Petruzzi’s father), M. Angélica M. Saavedra (Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra’s sister), Rosa Pincheira Sáez (Maria Concepción Pincheira Saez’s sister) and Teresa Valdés Escobar (mother of Alejandro Luis Astorga Valdés). On March 17, 2006, in view of the representatives’ observations, the Commission indicated that it was “admissible” to make the payment directly to the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas [Foundation for Social Aid of the Christian Churches] (FASIC for its acronym in Spanish).29 52. In this regard, the Court stresses that, at different times, it has asked the State to provide specific information on the status of the procedure to reimburse the costs and expenses. Specifically, it consulted whether the payment could be made directly to the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas [Foundation for Social Aid of the Christian Churches] (FASIC), as had been requested by the next of kin of the victims at one time. However, no relevant information was submitted. 53. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in the terms of the judgment, the obligation to comply with a specific measure of reparation is effective from the moment legal notice of the judgment is provided, irrespective of the corresponding time frame granted. In this regard, when handing down a judgment, the Court assumes the State’s good faith to take the necessary measures and make the effort required to comply within the time limits indicated.30 Consequently, as of legal notice of the Judgment, the State should have taken all the necessary measures to reimburse costs and expenses. And this, even though the Court is aware of the different administrative measures, procedures and arrangements that may be necessary at the domestic level to make the reimbursement.31 29 On June 22, 2005, the Inter-American Commission, based on information provide by FASIC, specified that a total of US$358 should be paid for expenses to each family (in other words, US$1,432) and US$7,779 to FASIC for expenses in hearings and fees. 30 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause 65. 31 Case of Montero Aranguren et al. v. Venezuela. Order of November 17, 2009, Considering clauses 67, 68 and 70. 14