10 execution of judgments issued by supranational courts), since they considered that those payments should come from the FEDADOI, where they have not been budgeted and they do not require the authorization of the Ministry of Economy and Finances for the corresponding “budgetary availability”. 10. That the State presented a request of opinion before the Court in order to determine the exact date as of which the interests for delayed payments should be computed. In this sense, the State mentioned that, according to the Peruvian Ministry of Justice, “the amount it must pay the former senior judges as compensation generates interests as of the date in which the amount of the compensation was determined,” that is, as of the date on which the ruling of July 1, 2003 was issued by the 64º Court Specialized in Civil Matters of Lima, for which it proceeded to issue the check corresponding to the interests for delayed payments for the period from July 2, 2003 to December 15, 2005. On its part, the victims or their next of kin considered that the interests for delayed payments should be computed as of August 1, 2001, that is, six months after the expiration of the term given to comply with the payments set in the Judgment of January 31, 2001 issued in the present case. At the same time, the Inter-American Commission estimated that said interests should be computed as of the moment in which the six-month period after the Judgment was notified had expired. 11. That in the last ruling of supervision of the Judgment issued in the present case, the Court mentioned, the same as in other cases,4 that the State responsible that incurs in delays regarding the payment of the compensations ordered by the Tribunal must pay interests over the amount due. It is an obligation of the State responsible to comply with payment of the compensations ordered by the Tribunal in its judgments within the time period established for it, and failure to comply with this obligation brings about consequences for the State. When payment is made after the period has expired, the consequent obligation arises for the state to pay interests over the amounts due, thus maintaining the value of the compensation and ensuring that said amounts maintain their purchasing power. The Court has declared that the States have the mentioned obligation to pay interests even when said obligation is not expressly established in the judgment in which the Tribunal ordered the reparations.5 12. That according to the fifth operative paragraph of the Judgment of January 31, 2001, the State should pay the compensatory amounts corresponding to the arrears of salary and other compensations that, pursuant to their legislation, corresponded to the victims, which should be set following the corresponding domestic procedures, and payments should be made within a six-month period as of the date on which the Judgment was notified. According to the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that the State has made some payments, in a differed manner, in the concept of the compensations owed to the victims, that in their totality add up to to the whole amount determined through the domestic procedures mentioned. 4 Cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, ninth whereas clause; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 278, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 338. 5 Cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, ninth whereas clause; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Court of November 22, 2002, 12 Whereas clause, and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Interpretation of the Compensatory Damages Judgment (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 17, 1990. Series C No. 9, para. 40, operative paragraph 4.