10 the Court appreciates that the State did pay certain compensations by way of pecuniary damage on that date. Said compensations would correspond to the amounts set forth by way of loss of earnings of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, in accordance with paragraph 171 of the Judgment, and they were distributed among the next of kin of said victims pursuant to the terms of paragraph 161 of the Order.6 The Court makes a positive assessment of the fact that the State has paid part of the compensations ordered in the Judgment. However, it notices that said payments were made after the term of one year set forth by the Judgment had expired, reason for which the State owes the interest on arrearages since August 3, 2008, date on which the term for complying with this obligation expired. 36. That the Court further notices the lack of information regarding the payment of the remaining compensations, costs and expenses. And it reminds that the term for the fulfillment of this obligation expired on August 3, 2008, reason for which, according to paragraph 209 of the Judgment, the State shall have to pay interest on arrearages for the amounts due. The Court observes that the State has partially complied with this reparation measure and it points out that it is necessary that the State fulfills the Court Judgment and that it informs on the proceedings effected in order to settle the unpaid balance. 37. That, finally, regarding the obligation to return the amount of seven thousand five hundred United States dollars (US$ 7,500.00) to Pelagia Mélida ContrerasMontoya de Cantoral (paragraph 187 of the Judgment), neither the State nor the representatives forwarded any information on the status of compliance. The Court reminds that the Judgment set forth that: […] with regard to the amount of US$ 7,500.00 (seven thousand five hundred United States dollars) delivered by the Federación Minera (Mining Federation) to Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and which he left moments prior to his death at the hostel where he was staying and which was seized and judicially deposited by the authorities in charge of the investigation, the Court notices that it was not returned, but it was allegedly lost or stolen while it was under judicial deposit. That is inferred not only from the arguments of the representatives, but also from the evidence presented by the State, in which it is informed that a public prosecutor’s office, on May 8, 1995, ordered the forwarding of the case file to the public prosecutor’s office on duty “as there were presumptions of the alleged perpetration of the crime against the property -theft- of the Certificate of Judicial Deposit of Banco Nación No. […] dated April 18, 1989, in the amount of US$ 7,500.” The loss of this amount of money under the custody of the State bears direct relation with the facts of the case and, consequently, it must be returned. Therefore, in the event this amount has not been yet returned, the Court orders the same is refunded to Mrs. Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya de Cantoral, who may use it for the purposes she deems pertinent. 38. That on January, 28, 2008, the Court, in its Judgment of Interpretation clarified a question posed by the State regarding the manner of fulfillment of this measure, and it explained that “the Court ordered that Mrs. Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya, widow of Cantoral, who is a party to this lawsuit, and not an entity alien to it as the Federación Minera (Mining Federation), would receive said amount and later on “may use it for the purposes she deems pertinent.” Notwithstanding the clarification above, the State did not provide any information on this reparation measure. * 6 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167.