6 in the instant case. The State indicated that “the deposit in the form of a trust fund would involve the cost of the administrative and financial expenses of the banking entities, and this would adversely affect the capital deposited and prejudice the interests of the minor beneficiaries included in the judgment on reparations, bearing in mind also the time that the money would be deposited in trust,” and requested the Court “to provide information on its point of view and/or opinion” in this regard. 16. The note of the Secretariat of August 27, 2003, in which, on the instructions of the President, it granted until September 26, 2003, for the representatives of the victims and their next of kin and the Inter-American Commission to submit any comments they deemed pertinent on the State’s consultation. 17. The brief of September 24, 2003, in which the National Human Rights Coordinator (CNDDHH) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), representatives of the victims and their next of kin, presented their comments on the State’s consultation (supra fifteenth having seen paragraph). In this brief with comments, they indicated, inter alia, that “in the friendly settlement agreement signed by the Peruvian State and ratified by the Court [...] the beneficiaries and their representatives insist[ed] that [depositing the amount of the compensation in a trust fund under the most favorable conditions according to Peruvian banking practice] was the means of complying with the obligation to provide compensation that was in the interest of the minors.” They also stated that the financial costs arising from setting up the trust fund could never be deducted from the amount deposited in favor of the minors, but should be assumed entirely by the State. 18. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of September 25, 2003, presenting its comments on the State’s consultation (supra fifteenth having seen paragraph). As an attachment, the Inter-American Commission presented the abovementioned brief with the comments of CNDDHH and CEJIL, and indicated that it endorsed their comments. The Inter-American Commission also stated that “[t]he judgment is clear that the amount to be deposited [in trust] is the amount of the compensation established by the Court in its judgment and that this should not be affected by expenses arising from any pertinent measures taken to comply with the ruling.” 19. The brief of September 26, 2003, in which the Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ) [Ecumenical Foundation for Development and Peace], representative of the victims and their next of kin, forwarded its comments on this consultation by the State (supra fifteenth having seen paragraph). In this respect, FEDEPAZ indicated, inter alia, that “any expenses that arises from the State’s compliance with the judgment sh[ould] be assumed by the State” and that “[i]t should not be understood that the third party in whose favor the trust fund is set up is obliged to assume the costs arising from this legal act.” It also stated that “in the Neira Alegría et al. case, the Peruvian State set up a trust fund for the beneficiaries who were minors and assumed the expenses arising from compliance with this payment, as was correct.” 20. The brief of October 21, 2003, in which the State provided information on compliance with the judgment on reparations. Peru stated that “it ha[d] complied with the delivery of the cheque [...] for $28,822.67 United States dollars to Crisosta Valle Chacmana, in representation of Norma Haydee Quispe Valle, beneficiary of the victim […] Lucio Quispe Huanaco” and that “it ha[d] complied with the delivery of the cheque […] for $175,000.00 United States dollars to Tehódulo Isidoro Sifuentes