the hands of a domestic court, and not directly in the hands of the government,” because on the contrary, “domestic courts form part of the State, and they have a duty to ensure the implementation of the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Court.” Faced with the "failure" of the legal proceedings, the common intervener considers it necessary that the State “present a plan to urgently overcome this failure.” The common intervener added that "none of the victims", despite having submitted "requests on time", "have received payment [...] in the nearly seven years that have passed since the issuance of the Judgment.” As for the other victims that the State said submitted their requests after the deadline, the common intervener estimated that “it is not just to deny them compensation.” In this regard, he said that “it would be inequitable and unfair to insist that victims comply with a period of eight months [pursuant to the provisions of Judgment],” while the State “fails to meet deadlines for all the measures of reparation.” Mr. Cassel said that "[i]n fairness, the Court should extend the periods for the victims until the State complies with the periods for the ordered measures of reparation.” Based on the abovementioned, he argued that “the State proposes to place the responsibility on the victims themselves to initiate proceedings for redress, whether or not they go through legal proceedings,” although "[i]t is the State, not the victims, who must take the lead in carrying out the measures of reparation.” 70. The Inter-American Commission stated in its observations of November 9, 2013, that it is "essential to ensure that the State does not impose additional burdens on the victims in obtaining redress,” which in this case “has materialized in the need to go through an additional legal proceeding that has lasted for more than six years with additional costs and the requirement of legal representation to receive the compensation to which they are entitled.” In regard to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, it highlighted in the private hearing that “payments [...]could be executed directly, immediately and without the intervention of the Supranational Court and that this proceeding is still [...] underway.” Nevertheless, it clarified that, according to the Judgment, “the pecuniary damage which could imply a determination at the domestic level is related to the degree of disability of the survivors.” In this regard, it referred to the method for determining, at the domestic level, the payment of compensation for which the Court established a maximum period of 18 months, indicating that "once the 8 months have passed for individuals to report, the State has 10 months as a maximum to make the relevant domestic determinations.” In this regard, it said that “the mechanism provided at the domestic level is not working at all, because [...] until now the Supranational Court is considering the appeal regarding whether certain individuals should be considered within the 8 months.” It added that it is “unacceptable that any progress be delayed regarding domestic determinations that are necessary for appeals” because “the State must distinguish this type of discussion from what it actually can begin to implement and could have begun to implement more than six years ago.” Moreover, in terms of the budget approved by the Congress of Peru for 2012 for the payment of compensation, it considered it to be “very important” that the Court request from the State specific information on what happened to that money and what the objective reasons are as to why it cannot proceed with payments that could be made immediately.” In light of the foregoing, it concluded that “the State must ensure the budgetary allocations needed to provide compensation to the victims as quickly as possible and report on the situation of those individuals who presented their requests for compensations extemporaneously in order for the Court to decide how to proceed.” G.3) Considerations of the Court 71. The Court notes that the State has argued that its "responsibility" to pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as established in the Judgment "is conditional on the outcome of the judicial proceeding that is pending within [the domestic 30