-4the second operative paragraph of the Court’s Order of September 12, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). Costa Rica stated as follows: a) as regards the nullification of the judgment rendered on November 12, 1999 by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José and all the measures thereby ordered, it stated that, in its Order of January 18, 2006, the Civil Large Claims Court, ruled that “there was no legal basis for the petition made by the [agents].” Furthermore, said civil court held that “the proceeding for the enforcement of [the criminal] judgment has already been closed,” that “for better or for worse- said proceeding has been carried out,” that “the affected party is entitled to […] claim from Przedborski-Chawa reimbursement of the money in question” and that “this Authority may not, on its own motion, act further to the request.” In view of the ruling of said court, a petition to Vacate and, alternatively, an Appeal was filed, stating that the Judgment of November 12, 1999 had been vacated by the Inter-American Court and the very same criminal Court that had actually rendered it, thus depriving it of all effects in the civil context, and, therefore, “the fact that legally there is no final judgment means that, apparently, there is no order […] to enforce,” i.e. “[t]he nullification of the former carries the inexistence of the latter.” The State reported that a decision on that petition is still pending, and provided copies of the court’s order and the petition and appeal filed; b) as regards the obligation to adjust its domestic legal system to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention on Human Rights”), in relation to Article 2 thereof, it noted that bill No. 15856, for the enactment of a Law entitled “Relaxation of Criminal Cassation Requirements Law,” “is at a fairly advanced stage,” and that on October 4, 2005, it was unanimously approved by the Legislative Assembly’s Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs. The State provided a copy of such approval opinion and an article published by the “La Nación” newspaper, and stated that said article “acknowledges and ratifies the relaxation of the Cassation requirements on the part of the judicial authorities.” Furthermore, it stated that said law is intended: to reduce the formalities for filing a writ of cassation; to allow the correction of formal defects; to allow evidence to be offered at the cassation stage “if the writ is based on a procedural defect and the court is required to rule on the manner in which a certain act was performed, in conflict with the records, the trial transcripts or the judgment [, …] if necessary to support the claim thus asserted and where a review procedure is also permissible;” to allow a cassation writ based on ���any of the grounds on which a judgment is allowed to be reviewed;” to amend the Judiciary’s Organizational Law to increase the number of alternate judges sitting in courts of cassation; and to have “the Court of Criminal Cassation [be] made up of independent divisions consisting of three judges each.” Once the aforementioned conditions have been met, the Court of Criminal Cassation will hear new cases in which the appropriate criminal court has rendered judgment as from such date as may be expressly set by the Supreme Court;” and c) as regards the payment of non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of expenses to Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa, since the State’s payment of US$ 30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) did not account for the interest accrued on the delay in payment, a request was made through the official letter of October 20, 2005 that the Minister of the