12 d) effective deposit of the full amount of compensation owed to the beneficiaries of the reparations who are minors: Luis Alvaro León Flores, son of victim Luis Antonio León Borja; Cristina and Ingrid Elizabeth, both Ríos Rojas, daughters of victim Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez; and Rocío Rosales Capillo, daughter of victim Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, “in a “trust fund under the most favorable conditions according to Peruvian banking practices” (operative paragraph two in fine of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). Concerning compliance with this point, the State has reported that a recommendation has been made that the amount corresponding to the compensation for minors be deposited in the Banco de la Nación, but that “the decision needed for compliance with this point was still pending.” The Court must underscore the fact that the State was to have deposited the amounts for those compensations in the first quarter of fiscal year 2002; in other words, more than two years ago. The Court must remind the State that it will have to pay the expenses of such a trust fund and pay the interest earned on the compensation and the interest due as a result of its delinquency in depositing the sums ordered4; e) regarding the health benefits provided (operative paragraph three of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations) the State indicated that it would pay the costs associated with the health and medical care (out-patient consultation, diagnostic support procedures, medicine, specialized care, diagnostic procedures, hospitalization, surgery, childbirth, traumatological rehabilitation, and mental health) of the victims and their beneficiaries, through the “health care facilities in the Peruvian State Health Care System.” The representatives made no reference to compliance with this measure and the Commission acknowledged the State’s effort but did not indicate whether it believed Peru had complied with this measure; f) the educational benefits provided (operative paragraph four of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). The State reported on the measures taken toward compliance with this point. The representatives pointed out that despite the efforts of the State, the information it provides does not mention, by name, the specific persons who have benefited by the measures taken; also, the State provides no information on any measures carried out in 2003 and 2004. The Commission echoed what the representatives had said and noted that it acknowledged the efforts the State had made to grant full or partial fellowships to the beneficiaries of the educational benefits; g) progress made toward the inclusion of “the most suitable legal classification” to define the crime of extra-judicial executions,” (operative paragraph 5.b) of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). Although the State omitted any reference to this point, the representatives reported that “Congress does have a functioning ‘Commission to Review the Penal Code’, created by Law No. 27837,” which is reportedly charged with “reviewing the text of the Penal Code [and] adapting it to the crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court […] with a view to preparing 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paragraphs 35, 36 and operative paragraph two in fine; and Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considinger paragraphs nine, ten, elevent, twelve, thirteen and fourteen.