6 a) it had requested information to the Congress of the Republic regarding the actions carried out in virtue of the claim forwarded by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and it also requested the those responsible for the destitution of the former Senior Judges of the Constitutional Court be investigated and punished, and b) it had asked the Ministry of Economy and Finances, after the partial payment made corresponding to arrears of salary, that it make a modification to its budget in order to comply with the payments ordered by the Court, pursuant to Law 27775. On the other hand, on May 10, 2005, it had asked the President of the FEDADOI that it dispose of the funds necessary for the payment of the reparations ordered by the Court. Likewise, it had requested the estimation of the legal interests in the present case and it had requested a work meeting in order to present a proposal for a one-year timetable of payments. In an official letter of July 26, 2005 addressed by the State’s agent to the Ministry of Justice, he states that the outstanding balance of the arrears of salary reached the amount of S/ 1,552,488.66 new soles and the interests for delayed payments reached the amount of S/ 122,295.96 new soles, for a total of S/1,664,784.72 new soles. 17. The brief of December 23, 2005, through which the Inter-American Commission presented observations to the state’s report (supra Consideration 16), and considered, inter alia, that: a) the situation that had been brought forward in its observations of May 2, 2005 had not changed since the State limited itself, once more, to consign the actions of domestic inquiry without there being any element that would let it determine any progress in the compliance, and b) the State is urged to immediately pay the totality of the amounts due to the victims and their successors. 18. The brief of December 27, 2005, through which Mrs. Herlinda Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre Roca informed that the reason for her delay in sending observations to the State’s report (supra Consideration 16) was because she was waiting for the State to pay the totality of the debt in those days, as it had offered to do so. 19. The brief of December 29, 2005, through which Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur, Herlinda Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre Roca, and Pilar Vega Alvear de Rey stated that in a meeting summoned by the Ministry of Justice they agreed on the amount to be paid and that with the payment made to them at the beginning of the year it settled the amount due of S/ 839,496.22 new soles. However, they did not agree with the amount of interests due because, pursuant to that established in the Judgment of the Court (supra Consideration 1), the State had a six-month term, as of its notification, to comply with the corresponding payment. Therefore, not having complied with this obligation the computing of the interests should start as of August 1, 2001, as stated in the ninth whereas clause of the ruling on the compliance with judgment of November 17, 2004 (supra Consideration 3). 20. The brief of January 12, 2006, through which Mrs. Delia Revoredo Marsano, Herlinda Ibáñez viuda de Aguirre, and Pilar Vega Alvear de Rey stated, inter alia, that: