3 2. To call upon the victim’s representative and the Inter-American Commission to submit to the Inter-American Court their observations to the State’s report of February 18, 2005 by March 30 and April 13, 2005, respectively. 3. To call upon the State to submit to the Inter-American Court, by May 23, 2005, a report stating all such measures as it may have adopted to comply with those reparations ordered by this Court which are still pending fulfillment, as established in Considering clause No. 10 and the first operative paragraph of this Order. The Court request[ed] that, specifically, the State report on the domestic legal measures taken to guarantee that no adverse decision delivered in the civil proceedings against LoayzaTamayo will have any legal effect whatsoever, and to provide the court order or file proving that the criminal, police and judicial records of Loayza-Tamayo have been actually expunged. 4. To request that the victim’s representative and the Inter-American Commission submit their observations to the State’s report referred to in the preceding operative paragraph, within a period of four and six weeks, respectively, as from the date of receipt of said report. 5. To continue monitoring the pending aspects of the Judgment on reparations. […] 8. The brief filed by the victim’s representative (hereinafter “the representative”), dated April 6, 2005, whereby she submitted her observations to the report of the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) of February 18, 2005, further to the request of the Court in the second operative paragraph of the Order of March 3, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). Through said brief, the representative insisted that Peru "has not yet complied with any of the measures set by the Court in its most recent orders on compliance," which amounts to “the continued non-compliance with the Court’s judgment on reparations and a flagrant violation of the international law rules ratified by the State.” 9. The April 13, 2005 brief of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”), whereby it submitted its comments on the report filed by the State on February 18, 2005, further to the request of the Court in the second operative paragraph of the Order of March 3, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). In this regard, the Commission acknowledged the State’s efforts “with a view to taking all such steps as may be relevant to secure” compliance with the Court’s orders. However, it noted that the State has not yet complied with those obligations that are still pending fulfillment under the Judgment on reparations, nor has it provided information on the adoption of measures that are truly effective in securing compliance therewith. 10. The June 6, 2005 letter of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), whereby, further to the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it insisted that the State was to file a report on compliance, pursuant to the third operative paragraph of the Court’s Order of March 3, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). Repeat requests were made on July 7 and September 5, 2005. In the latter letter, the State was given a final deadline expiring on October 3, 2005 for submission of the aforementioned report. The State has failed to file the requested report. 11. The victim’s communication of October 3, 2005 and the Appendixes thereto, whereby the victim advised the Court of the difficulties and inconveniences she is currently suffering due to the State's failure to comply with the judgments on the Merits and on Reparations.