-6to [..,] as well as referring to the connection of the latter to compliance with the terms of the judgment of February 28, 2003, and to the victims’ enjoyment of their rights, in accordance with the terms of the judgment. 11. That, on three occasions, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President (supra Having seen paragraphs 5 and 7), had reminded the State that, on November 30, 2005, the time granted for submitting the said report on compliance with the judgment had expired, and required it to submit this report as soon as possible; despite this, the State has not submitted the report. 12. That the Court notes with concern that approximately seven months have elapsed since the time granted for the State to submit its report on compliance with judgment has expired, and the State has not provided the Court with the requested information, particularly, taking into account that the representatives of the victims and their next of kin allege that there has been a “drastic” reduction in the pensions (supra Having seen paragraph 6). 13. That the Court does not have the information required to assess whether any of the reparations have been fulfilled and to determine which reparations ordered by the Court remain pending compliance. In this regard, the Court has received a document in which the State indicates that “the list of the beneficiaries of the payments ordered in the Court’s judgments […] is transmitted, and their cheques are at the Treasury Office, awaiting collection by”: inter alia, Carlos Alberto Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidobro, Guillermo Alvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and Sara Elena Castro Remy, widow of Maximiliano Domingo Gamarra Ferreira (supra Having seen paragraph 7). However, the Court has no further information on whether these cheques have been paid out to the victims and their families, which would allow it to assess whether some aspects of the judgment have been complied with. That the obligation to inform the Court about compliance with judgment is an 14. obligation that, to be fulfilled effectively, requires the formal presentation of a document within the allotted time with specific, true, current and detailed information on the issues to which the obligation refers.5 15. That, in view of the above findings, the Court considers it urgent that Peru transmit the report on compliance with the judgment as soon as possible and that, in this report, it include detailed information on the alleged reductions in the pensions of the four victims and of the widow of Mr. Gamarra Ferreyra that occurred as of June 2005; and on the above-mentioned administrative-law proceedings filed so that the resolutions issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Banks and Insurance in 1995 and 2002 ordering compliance with the rulings in the final judgments deciding the applications for protective measures would be declared null and void; as well as referring to the connection of the latter with compliance with the terms of the judgment of February 28, 2003, and to the enjoyment of the rights of the victims, as decided in that judgment. 5 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó Communities. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, sixteenth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Eighteenth considering paragraph.