13 proceedings related to the procedure before the body. 42. That the State acknowledged that it did not provide legal advisory services, free of charges, to the victims in the procedure before the CEE. It alleges that it was not necessary, since the victims have always participated in the legal proceedings by means of their attorneys, and they always had their respective legal advisors. Therefore, according to the State, the victims have never requested legal advisory services, free of charge, to the State and it was not necessary to provide them anyway. Finally, the State noted that in Peru, there are several ways to obtain free legal advisory services, for example, by means of the Ombudsman's office of the Ministry of Justice. 43. That the representatives pointed out that the State did not establish any mechanism to provide the victims with competent legal advisory services, free of charge, during the procedure before the CEE. 44. That the Commission made a similar observation and indicated that the provision of legal advisory services implies that the Judgment refers to a body in which the individual victims could participate and have the opportunity to present individual complaints and, therefore, it questioned the compliance with this aspect of the Judgment. 45. That, in accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal concludes that the State did not comply with the terms of the Judgment, as to the provision of legal advisory services, free of charges, for the victims. This confirms, in turn, that it did not adequately guarantee the right to a hearing, according to what has been mentioned (supra Considering clause 37). D. The final decisions of the body must be adopted within the term of one year, as of notice of the Judgment. 46. That the State acknowledged that the final decision of the CEE, issued on April 16, 2009, was not adopted within the deadline established by this Tribunal in the Judgment, though it asserted that the cause of a great part of the delay was the disagreement between the victims’ representatives and it noted that the CEE adopted its final resolution within the time limit granted by the domestic law that governed it, which was a renewable term of 90 days by means of the Ministerial Order. 47. That the representatives and the Commission noted that the CEE adopted its final resolution after the deadline established in the Judgment. 48. That the Tribunal established in the Judgment that the recourse must be prompt and simple, and that the final decisions of the body to be set up to that end, must be adopted within the term of one year, as of notice of the Judgment. In this way, the Tribunal notes that the resolution of the CEE was adopted more than two years after the time limit stipulated, and that it was not made according to the manner ordered by this Tribunal to such effect. * * * Payment of non-pecuniary damage 49. That in relation to the payment of the sums established in favor of the 257 victims as compensation for non-pecuniary damage (operative paragraph five of the Judgment), the State informed that, in the subsequent years, it has been requested to the Ministry of