“[i]n a letter of June 13, 2007, the National Human Rights Council and the Minister of Education were advised that Mr. Ramírez Rojas had decided to present his candidature for a master’s degree in the [Pontificia] Universidad Católica de Perú.” The representatives stressed that “to date none of the measures that the National Human Rights Council (today office of the Supranational Attorney), was able to take has concluded in [...] the award of a study grant to follow a master’s degree program in the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos or any other higher education establishment.” 13. The Commission observed “that the only recent information on compliance with this aspect of the judgment is that provided by the representatives. Although the Commission assesse[d] positively the progress that this information reveals, as regards the exoneration of Mr. García Asto from payment to obtain his professional degree and the reimbursement of expenses he had incurred, it observes that the reimbursement of every payment made is still pending, as well as the study grant for professional upgrading for two years following the completion of his studies.” In addition, the Commission observed that “neither the State nor the representatives have referred to compliance with this obligation in relation to Urcesino Ramírez Rojas.” 14. The Court takes note of the correspondence between the Supranational Attorney’s Office and the Ministry of Education in relation to compliance with this aspect; however, it finds that insufficient progress has been made to implement the Court’s ruling. The study grants in this case should have been awarded with particular respect for the time frame established in the judgment. In the specific case of Mr. García Asto, since this did not occur, the victim himself carried out all the admission procedures in order to obtain training and professional upgrading. Although Mr. García Asto completed his studies through his own efforts and with financial help from his family, he finally obtained the exoneration and the reimbursement of all the payments made to complete his studies in the Universidad Nacional del Callao. The Court observes that, although this exoneration and reimbursement were not obtained as a result of the steps taken by the Supranational Attorney’s Office. The Universidad Nacional del Callao is a public university – in other words, a State institution – and it granted him assistance that resembled a study grant in response to a ruling made by the Court in its judgment. Consequently, given the reparatory intention of the decision of the said State university, the Court finds that this ruling on reparation for Mr. García Asto has been fulfilled as regards “a grant that allows him to complete his studies.” 5 Nevertheless, the Court will continue monitoring compliance in relation to the “award of a study grant that allows him […] to undertake further studies and continue his professional training for two years after he has completed his first level degree.” Therefore, the Court concludes that the State has complied partially with the terms of the judgment by awarding a study grant that allowed Mr. García Asto to complete his studies; however, monitoring will continue in relation to the award of a grant that allows him to obtain further training. In this regard, the Court awaits further information on the response to the last request presented by Mr. García Asto concerning the exoneration of the costs of the Propaedeutics course in order to obtain the title of Systems Engineer, and other measures related to this reparation. 15. With regard to Mr. Ramírez Rojas, the Court takes note that, on more than one occasion, he advised of his interest in obtaining a master’s degree in Economics with a major in Economic Science and Economic Policy, without obtaining a satisfactory answer. Consequently, the Court requests the State to present recent, precise and complete information on the steps taken to comply with this obligation. 5 Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 281. 5