6 in the budget [indicated by the Ministry of Economy and Finance] due to a failure of State management, is not a valid reason to fail to comply with the payment of the sums." They argued that the workers are the ones who have had to bear the failure to comply, appealing multiple times before the judicial authorities, in some cases seeking precautionary measures to obtain partial payments through embargo and auction of state goods. In other cases, an order was issued by the 27th Specialized Civil Court of the Superior Court of Justice of the Ministry of Justice requiring the debt to be paid. They also expressed their concern because on May 3, 2010, the President of the Republic sent the Congress of the Republic Bill No. 4006/2009-PE to "establish, among other things, that compliance with supernational judgments is not carried out according to the deadline decided in the judgments handed down by the corresponding bodies (for example in the case at issue, one year counting from its notification), but rather that it be subjected to the provisions of domestic law and, in particular, to the terms of the Consolidated Text of the Law, which regulates contentious administrative proceedings (Supreme Decree No. 013-2008-JUS) and Article 70 of Law No. 28411, General Law of the National Budget System, which provides for substantially longer deadlines extending up to five years." The common interveners argued that these provisions contradict the duty assumed by the State on ratifying the American Convention. 13. The interveners also requested that the Court rule that the State has failed to comply with what was ordered in the Judgment and that the State "has committed a new violation" of the rights recognized in Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention, for which reason he requested that it "order the corresponding remedies and measures of reparation” and report on them to the General Assembly of the OAS. 14. The common interveners provide a communication dated December 16, 2009, from the People’s Ombudsman's Office addressed to the President of the Council of Ministers in which it observed the State’s noncompliance, which persists "both with regard to the amount explicitly established in the ruling of the Court for nonpecuniary damage […] as well as the amount to be determined (in the event that the irregular dismissal is verified) by the independent and impartial organ referred to in [the Judgment’s operative paragraph number] 4.” Consequently, the Ombudsman's Office recommended that the necessary measures be taken to "authorize the Ministry of Economy and Finance to designate the budgetary resources for complying with the judgment […] and with the provisions of the Forty-Fifth Final Provision of the Public Sector Budget Act for fiscal year 2009." 15. The Commission observed that "no effective action has been recorded" towards compliance with what has been ordered and hopes that the obstacles to carrying out the payments can be overcome as soon as possible. It also expressed its concern with regard to the information received on a draft bill that “is intended to condition compliance with international obligations assumed by the State in good faith on the domestic law of the State responsible for the violation that led to the reparatory measure.” Likewise, it observed that there is no indication that efforts have been made to make contacts and coordinate domestically in order to make the reparatory measures that were ordered effective and in order for the steps taken to effectively mitigate the violation of human rights that the victims have suffered and not simply represent the execution of formal actions." 16. The Court observes that in the time that has passed since the Judgment was handed down, the payments ordered for nonpecuniary damages have not been made by the State, despite what the Tribunal ordered and what the State expressed during the hearing and in its briefs. It is necessary to highlight that despite the provision for it in the Budgetary Act of 2009, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has reported that it does not have the necessary funds, as the People’s Ombudsman's Office itself has noted (supra Considering 13). The Court reiterates that it is crucial for the State to take the remaining steps to make these payments as soon as possible. Likewise, given that the State has fallen into arrears, it must report on the steps taken for effective compliance with this operative paragraph, as well as on the applicable provisions for covering the corresponding interest on arrears, pursuant to paragraph 161 of the Judgment. B) Request for adoption of provisional measures