5 reiterating the request to require the representatives of the victims to designate their representatives for the "special Commission" but specifying that "this will now be composed not of four but of five members: two designated by the State (one by the Congress of the Republic and the other by the Ministry of Justice), two by the representatives of the victims, and the fifth - who will head the Commission - by both parties through a common agreement." On April 7, the representatives of the victims communicated their choice for their two representatives on the Commission to the Office of the State's Attorney. The State also named its two representatives on April 9, 2010. Thus on April 20, 2010, the special Commission was officially established and the nomination of the president was agreed upon. That individual accepted the position in August of 2010. That same month, the rules of the "special Commission" were approved, and since then several meetings have been held by the Commission; it was agreed to discuss the criteria for reparations; information has been requested of Congress with regard to the situation of each victim; and public hearings have been called to provide the victims with an opportunity to personally express what they deem pertinent, submit concerns, and propose their own criteria for reparations. 9. For its part, the Inter-American Commission found that the decision to establish a new "Special Commission" in charge of supervising compliance with the judgment "constitutes a noteworthy step forward in the prolonged compliance process." Likewise, the Commission noted that "with the deadline passed for complying with the creation of an independent body and for this body to have taken final decisions, there is no expectation that the obligation established by the Court will be put into practice and resolved within a reasonable period of time." With regard to the mechanism for providing free legal aid to the injured parties in this case, the Commission highlighted the lack of information with regard to the way in which the public defenders that were assigned could participate in the defense of the interests of the victims before the "Special Commission." 10. In its earlier order (supra Having Seen 5), the Court emphasized the characteristics of the body that the State must create to comply with what was established in operative paragraph 4 of the aforementioned judgment for the determination of the victims’ rights. At that time, the Tribunal viewed positively that the State and the representatives had begun formalizing a new "Special Commission" that would be in charge of determining the corresponding juridical consequences and, where appropriate, the compensation due to each of the victims, having already determined that the victims were improperly and unjustifiably dismissed from the Congress. According to the information provided by the interveners, that “Special Commission" has already begun to function. On recalling that the State obligation must constitute a rapid and simple remedy whose final decisions should be made within the period of one year from the notification of the judgment, and after the order handed down one year ago, the Court hopes that the proceeding agreed upon and established comes to a proper conclusion as quickly as possible. In addition, the Tribunal views positively the designation of public defenders to provide legal aid to the victims and requests information from the State on the way in which this mechanism is being implemented. A.2) Payment of nonpecuniary damages 11. With regard to the payment of the amount established victims for nonpecuniary damages (operative paragraph 5 of limited itself to reporting on the steps taken and communication 2009 with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economy public bodies, to enact compliance. to the benefit of the 257 the judgment), the State carried out during the year and Finance, among other 12. The common interveners expressed that the state did not provide for the payments of the indemnitees in the 2009 Budget Law, even though during the hearing it committed to paying the debt by December 31, 2009, at the latest. They highlighted that the State has not complied despite the existence of several orders that, towards doing so, have been issued by the People's Ombudsman's Office and the judicial orders and punishments that the Ministry of Justice has imposed in the execution proceeding that certain victims are currently pursuing domestically. They reiterated that the State intends to justify its noncompliance by taking refuge in domestic legislation, as "the lack of corresponding funds