6. In accordance with the above, on February 4, 2010, the Court adopted its Rules for the Operation of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund (hereinafter “the Rules of the Assistance Fund”), which have been in force since June 1, 2010, in order to “regulate the operation of, and access to, the […] Fund […] for the litigation of cases before [the Inter-American Court].” 8 Article 5 of these Rules, with regard to “Reimbursement of costs to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund,” indicates that “[t]he Court shall evaluate in its judgment whether to order the respondent State to reimburse expenditures made from the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” Consequently, the reimbursement to the Legal Assistance Fund of the amounts ordered by the Inter-American Court within the time frame established by the Court forms part of compliance with the Court’s judgments. 7. In view of the violations declared in the Judgment, and based on the provisions of article 5 of the Rules of the Legal Assistance Fund, the Court ordered the State to reimburse the Fund the sum of USS9,046.35 (nine thousand and forty-six United States dollars and thirty-five cents), for the expenses incurred to ensure the appearance at the public hearing held in this case of one presumed victim and one of the representatives, as well as for the expenses of preparing and delivering an affidavit made by one witness. This amount should have been reimbursed within 90 days of notification of the said Judgment. However, this time frame expired on August 30, 2012, and, at the date of the issue of this Order, the State has not yet complied with the reimbursement ordered (supra having seen paragraphs 1 and 5). 8. According to the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment, the State should have provided the Court with a report on the measures adopted to comply with it within one year of notification of the Judgment. Argentina presented the said report on July 5, 2013. In this report, the State did not refer specifically to the measures adopted to comply with the reimbursement of the amount corresponding to the Legal Assistance Fund. However, in general, it indicated that it “was waiting for information on the pecuniary aspects of the Judgment from the agencies with primary competence in this regard, and the Court would be advised in this regard as soon as possible.” It is not clear to the Court whether this general reference to “the pecuniary aspects of the Judgment” includes the reimbursement of the amount corresponding to the Court’s Assistance Fund. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State has not yet reimbursed the amount ordered in the Judgment to the Legal Assistance Fund even though almost a year has passed since the respective time frame expired. 9. Currently, the resources available in the Court’s Assistance Fund are limited. In this regard, the Court underscores that it was the OAS itself that found it pertinent to create the Legal Assistance Fund in order to benefit presumed victims; the Fund is therefore addressed to the latter. 9 Hence, its satisfactory operation and the availability of its resources are designed to ensure access to inter-American justice to those presumed victims who lack the required financial resources. Consequently, the failure of States to comply promptly with reimbursement to the Legal Assistance Fund of the amount ordered in the corresponding judgments directly affects its sustainability and, above all, the presumed victims’ access to justice before the Court. 8 Rules of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the Operation of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, approved by the Court on February 4, 2010, article 1. 9 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Court of March 4, 2011, ninth considering paragraph, and Case of Osorio Rivera et al. v. Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of March 12, 2013, ninth considering paragraph. 3