4 Justice.” Regarding payment of the amount due for moral damages, legal costs and expenses, they stated that they had received no formal communication from the Ministry of Justice, but that they did receive one from the Supreme Council of Military Justice, in official letter No. 0107 S-CSJM 1.V.E. of December 5, 2001, explaining that a request had been filed for “the procedure to be channeled before the competent authority” for payment of compensation. Regarding the compensation for pecuniary damages, the representatives pointed out that the “Multi-Sector Committee entrusted with studying possible mechanisms […] to fulfill the responsibility of the State derived from judgments of Supra-National Courts” had submitted no report, despite the fact that the deadline to do so had expired. They also pointed out that the domestic legal system provides for alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, such as Settlement and Arbitration, which were not even attempted and much less furthered by the State. On the other hand, the victim and his representative pointed out that Peru “has not been complying with the orders of the Court set forth in the Judgment on the Merits but rather[,] in violation of the provisions of said judgment, it had continued with a second criminal proceeding and was in the investigative phase of a third complaint for the same facts that were heard under military venue.” They specifically stated that the new complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against Mr. Cesti Hurtado “is based on precisely the same facts that were heard in the proceeding under regular military venue that […]was overruled by Inter-American Court, together with [nullification] of all its legal consequences.” Finally, they referred to a third complaint being processed by the Second Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, regarding which “Gustavo Cesti was able to ascertain that the facts addressed in this new investigation are the same as in the proceeding against him under military venue […] and they are the same facts currently being investigated by the 15th Criminal Court.” 8. The March 27, 2002 brief, in which the Commission submitted to the Court its comments on “the March [13] 2002 communication by Mr. Cesti Hurtado regarding compliance with the judgment of the […] Court”. In this brief, the Commission pointed out that the State had only complied with the order to release Mr. Cesti Hurtado. It added that the inter-disciplinary body established to settle the financial compensations ordered had reached no decision regarding Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s case. It also pointed out that the State had not complied with the order to investigate and punish those responsible for Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s indictment. With respect to renewal of criminal prosecution against Mr. Cesti Hurtado, the Commission pointed out that due process was being breached, as the victim was being criminally prosecuted for the third time for the same facts. The Commission also asked the Court to find that Peru had not fully complied with the judgments issued in the case. Finally, with respect to the compensations that should have been set by the State, the Commission asked the Court to order that “they be established by experts appointed to definitively resolve this matter.” 9. The November 6, 2002 letter by the Secretariat of the Court, in which, under instructions by the President, it asked the State to submit a new report on compliance with the May 31, 2001 judgment (supra Having Seen 3). 10. The November 28, 2002 brief by the State, in which it reported that payment of US$ 65,000.00 (sixty-five thousand United States dollars) was pending, and that it had asked FEDADOI for this amount (supra Having Seen 5). 11. The December 6, 2002 report by the State, in which it explained that evaluation of Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s request for the amount of compensation for moral