2 1. The State shall: a) conduct an effective investigation into the facts of this case in order to identify, prosecute and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the extrajudicial execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse. The result of this procedure shall be published, in the terms of paragraphs 107 and 108 of th[e …] Judgment; b) organize a public act acknowledging its responsibility in relation to the instant case and make a public apology to the victim’s next of kin, in the terms of paragraph 111 of the […] Judgment; c) publish in the official gazette and in another national newspaper both the section entitled “Proven Facts” and the operative paragraphs of this judgment, in the terms of paragraph 112 of th[e …] Judgment; d) establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law, called the “Cátedra Pedro Huilca,” in the terms of paragraph 113 of th[e …] Judgment; e) recall and praise the work of Pedro Huilca Tecse in favor of the trade union movement in Peru during the official celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day), in the terms of paragraph 114 of th[e …] Judgment; f) erect a bust in the memory of Pedro Huilca Tecse, in the terms of paragraph 115 of th[e …] Judgment; g) provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin, in the terms of paragraph 116 of th[e …] Judgment; h) pay the amounts established in paragraphs 98 and 99 of th[e …] Judgment to the next of kin of the victim in the instant case, for non-pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraphs 92, 100, 101, 120 and 121 of th[e …] Judgment; i) pay the amount established in paragraph 94 of th[e …] Judgment to Martha Flores Gutiérrez, for pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraphs 95 and 120 of th[e …] Judgment; and j) deposit the compensation established in favor of the minors, Indira Isabel Huilca Flores and José Carlos Huilca Flores, in a banking investment in their name in a solvent Peruvian institution, in United States dollars or in national currency, to be determined by their legal representative, within a period to be agreed by the parties and in the most favorable financial conditions allowed by banking practice and law, while they are minors, in the terms of paragraphs 120(3) and 121 of th[e …] Judgment. 2. To the extent that the agreement ha[d] been endorsed by th[e …] Judgment, any dispute or disagreement that [may] arise[…] [would] be decided by the Court, in accordance with paragraph 122 of th[e] judgment. 3. The State [was to] provide the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with a report on compliance with the Judgment within one year of notification thereof, in accordance with paragraph 123 of th[e] Judgment. 4. It shall monitor compliance with the obligations established in th[e] Judgment and shall consider the case closed when the State has complied fully with the operative paragraphs. […] 2. The communications filed by the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on August 16, 2005, September 30, 2005, November 15, 2005, February 2, 2006, March 16, 2006, August 10, 2006, and August 14, 2006, whereby the State reported that: a) regarding the obligation to effectively investigate the facts of the instant case: i) it advanced the proceedings aimed at identifying, prosecuting and punishing the masterminds and perpetrators of the extrajudicial execution of Pedro Huilca-Tecse; ii) file No. 485-03, opened against Margot Cecilia DomínguezBerrospi et al. for the crime of Terrorism against Pedro Huilca-Tecse and the State, ended with the judgment of acquittal delivered on March 7, 2006 by the National Criminal Division of the Lima Court of Appeals, against which an appeal for a declaration of nullity was filed