4 (CNDDHH), the representative of the victims and their next of kin, to the abovementioned report of the State (supra fifth having seen paragraph). The Commission indicated that “as it ha[d] no information on the matter, apart from that provided by the petitioners, it referred to the information they had submitted.” 7. The brief of August 1, 2002, in which the National Human Rights Coordinator (CNDDHH), the representative of the victims and their next of kin, presented its comments on the said report of the State (supra fifth having seen paragraph) directly to the Court. 8. The brief of September 19, 2002, in which the Embassy of Peru in Costa Rica forwarded a copy of Supreme Resolution No. 284-2002-RE of August 29, 2002, resolving to appoint the lawyer, María del Pilar Freitas Alvarado, as Agent in this case, in substitution of Javier Ernesto Ciurliza Contreras. By Supreme Resolution No. 384-2001-RE of September 18, 2001, the State accepted the resignation of Mr. Ciurliza Contreras as Peru’s Agent in the instant case. 9. The order issued by the Court on November 22, 2002, in the fifth considering clause of which, it established that it was essential that Peru provide information: a) Regarding the broadcast by a radio station and a television channel of an announcement indicating that the next of kin of Odar Mender (or Méndez) Sifuentes Nuñez, Benedicta Yanque Churo and Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto were being sought to grant them reparation in relation to the facts of the instant case; b) Regarding the payment of the compensation owing to the beneficiaries of Odar Mender (or Méndez) Sifuentes Núñez, Benedicta Yanque Churo and Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, who were still being sought when the judgment on reparations was delivered; c) Regarding payment of compensation to the following beneficiaries: i) Luis Alvaro León Flores, son of the victim, Luis Antonio León Borja; ii) Martín León Lunazco, son of the victim, Máximo León León; iii) Norma Haydé Quispe Valle, daughter of the victim, Lucio Quispe Huanaco; iv) Cristina Ríos Rojas and Ingrid Elizabeth Ríos Rojas, daughters of the victim, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez; and v) Rocío Rosales Capillo, daughter of the victim, Alejandro Rosales Alejandro; d) Regarding the deposit of the amount of the compensation corresponding to the beneficiaries of the reparations who were minors in a “trust fund under the most favorable conditions according to Peruvian banking practice,” in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 35 of the judgment on reparations; e) Whether the compensation owing to the respective beneficiaries had been paid during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002 and, if not, regarding the payment of arrears, as regulated in paragraph 36 of the judgment on reparations; f) Regarding the education and health services provided; g) Regarding implementation of the Court’s ruling in its judgment on interpretation of the judgment on merits in this case “on the meaning and scope of the declaration of ineffectiveness of Acts No. 26479 and [Nº] 26492”, should the State have any information in addition to that which it had already forwarded to the Court; h) Regarding progress in incorporating “the most suitable legal classification” to define the crime of extra-judicial execution;