2 by said Court, in conformance with the Decision of said Court of November 17, 1999; c) that the situation of Ms. Loayza-Tamayo, who suffered serious disorders in her physical and psychic health during the term of her imprisonment, and as a result of the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments to which she was subject, has worsened. Moreover, she is currently residing in the City of Santiago, Chile; she is not working, and she is receiving medical care supported by the non-government organization Fundación Ayuda Social de Iglesias Cristianas (hereinafter “FASIC”); d) more than one yea ago, Ms. Loayza-Tamayo does not receive continuous, adequate medical care, just occasional therapies provided by Chilean doctors when she can afford them and pay for medicines; thus, continuous medical care is necessary for her condition not to get worse, without a real possibility of restitutio integrum. FASIC and the Office of the United Nations in Santiago lack the adequate means to keep taking care of this case; e) due to her physical and psychic or emotional conditions, Ms. LoayzaTamayo often has not been able to find and is not able to find a permanent job. She only finds occasional and precarious jobs, not adequate for her level of education, and her human and social potential, which do not allow her a dignified living and which worsen her situation of stress and feeling of discrimination, humiliations and frustration for the exile which she was forced to by her fear of losing her freedom in Perú. Her relatives cannot offer her any economic assistance, since they are taking care of her children; f) Perú did not comply with the items of resolution of the Judgement of Indemnification with respect to the children of the victim, her other relatives, and her attorney; g) Perú has the obligation of complying with the juridical duties imposed on it by the Pacto de San José de Costa Rica; h) the fair indemnification decided by the Court, although not eliminating the consequences suffered by Ms. Loayza-Tamayo, is the only opportunity for her to improve her living conditions, to take care of her health and prevent it from worsening. The credit that Ms. Loayza-Tamayo has with respect to Perú is not a normal credit, but the pretium doloris, a price that she already “paid” and continues paying in exile; and i) with regards to the right to life, Ms. Loayza-Tamayo’s life project has been damaged, and her freedom recuperated with the Judgement of the Inter-American Court on the matter is “worth little for her” because the conduct of the State, to date, prevents her from having the minimum of a dignified life. Likewise, her right to health is seriously violated and diminished. 2. The brief of November 29, 2000, received on December 11, 2000 at the General Secretariat of the Court, where Ms. Carolina Loayza-Tamayo stated the she “share[s] the legal representation of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo with Professors Michelangela Scalabrino and Hector Faúndez Ledezma, at the request of Ms. Loayza-