11 necessary for the State Parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court.4 * * * 8. That having examined the communications submitted by the parties, this Court finds that the information and documentation provided shows that the State has complied with its obligation to pay the amounts specified in the Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage and to reimburse the costs and expenses to María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, Alcira Domitila Flores Rosas, widow of De La Cruz, Alcira Isabel De La Cruz Flores, Celso Fernando De La Cruz Flores, Jorge Alfonso De La Cruz Flores, Ana Teresa Blanco De La Cruz, and Danilo Alfredo Blanco De La Cruz, respectively (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(b), 3(b) and 4(b)). 9. That in relation to the reinstatement of Ms. De La Cruz Flores to the job she was performing as a medical professional in public institutions at the time of her detention, the Judgment in the instant case specified that “[s]he [had to] be reincorporated, at least, at the level she had attained when she was detained.”5 The information and documentation submitted by the parties reveals that Ms. De La Cruz Flores has been reinstated to ESSALUD, the Peruvian social health insurance, to a position equivalent to the one she held at the time of her detention, although she was not assigned to the same pediatric unit where she worked at the time (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(d), 3(d) and 4(d)). This Court appreciates that she has been reinstated to an equivalent position and finds that said obligation has been complied with. 10. That the State has partially complied with the obligation to publish the section entitled “Proven Facts” as well as operative paragraphs 1 to 3 of the declaratory part of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in another daily newspaper with national circulation, insofar as the State only published said sections in El Comercio newspaper on December 30, 2005. However, this Court may not find that the State has fully complied with this obligation inasmuch as there is no information available regarding the publication in the Official Gazette of Peru (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(g), 3(g) and 4(g)). 11. That in regards to the duty to observe the right to freedom from ex post facto laws and the requirements of due process in the new proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores, the Court has noted that the Corte Suprema (Supreme Court of Peru) has not ruled on the motions to vacate filed with said Court by the defense and the prosecution against the judgment delivered on July 10, 2006 by the Sala Nacional de Terrorismo (National Chamber on Terrorism) in the second criminal proceeding brought against the victim, which resulted in Ms. De la Cruz Flores's conviction for the crime of affiliation with terrorism, for which she was sentenced to a prison term 4 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2007. 5 Case of De La Cruz-Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 169.