18 73. The State argued that a) The terms granted by the Court in the Judgment are maximum time limits; and b) With regard to the 10-day term established in Law No. 27,775, it is worth mentioning that said time frame is only applicable if, once the term granted by the Court has expired, the State fails to comply with the Judgment and the beneficiaries resort to the Judiciary to enforce their collection rights. Considerations by the Court 74. This Court considers that the scope of the provisions of the Judgment of February 7, 2006 is clear as regards the terms of compliance therewith. Nevertheless, in order to clear any doubts, the Court will now refer to the terms within which the State must pay non pecuniary damages and reimburse costs and expenses. 75. In this regard, in its Judgment of February 7, 2006, under the title "Method of Compliance", the Court stated that: 321. The State must pay the victims or their successors the compensation for non pecuniary damage, within fifteen months, as from the date notice of this Judgment be served, as provided […] herein. 322. The State must reimburse costs and expenses within one year, as from the date notice of this Judgment be served, as provided in paragraph 316 herein. […]. 76. The Court states that the terms asserted in its Judgment for compliance by the State with the reparations ordered therein are time periods intended to serve as deadlines for compliance by the State with the pertinent reparations. In other words, the State must comply with its obligations within the established terms, and not after them, to avoid falling in arrears. 77. Due to the fact that the Judgment of the Court was notified by the State on March 1, 2006, the 15-month term to pay non pecuniary damages expires on June 2, 2007; and the 12-month term to reimburse costs and expenses expires on March 2, 2007. 78. The Court furthers notes that the State, according to its arguments, has properly understood that "the terms granted by the Court in its Judgment are maximum time limits.” 79. With regard to the inquiry referred to “the provisions of Law No. 27,775 governing the enforcement of judgments issued by supranational courts,” (supra para. 70.b), the Court reiterates the provisions of its Judgment of February 7, 2006 in that the obligation to make the reparations ordered in said ruling is governed in all aspects (scope, nature, method and declaration of beneficiaries) by the International Law and must not be modified or unfulfilled by the State by resorting to its domestic laws.