8 proceeding, including those related to the pre-trial proceedings. The Commission recognized the efforts made by the State to comply with its obligation to investigate the facts and punish those responsible for them. Lastly, it requested that “in exercise of the authority granted by Article 65 of the American Convention and Article 30 of the Statute of the Court […], and to maintain a situation similar to the current one, in its next report to the General Assembly, the Court should mention that compliance with the first, second, third, fifth and sixth operative paragraphs of [the judgment] was still pending.” 31. The report of the State of August 20, 2003, in which it indicated that María Elena Loayza Tamayo had been reinstated in her position as a teacher at College 2,057 and, to date, the amount of her salary corresponded to the remuneration for that activity in the public sector; that the victim would enjoy her right to retirement like any employee at the service of the State; that the National Corporative Chamber for Terrorism cases of the Lima Superior Court of Justice had ordered the annulment of the criminal, police and legal records arising from the terrorism proceeding and, at that date, no legal norm or decision issued by a Peruvian authority affected the legal status of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo; that it was doing everything necessary to comply with its obligation to investigate the facts, and to prosecute and punish those responsible for them; and that the State had complied with its obligation to pay the compensation ordered by the Court. 32. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of October 23, 2003, in which it submitted its comments on compliance with the judgment on reparations in this case and stated that “in relation to the first operative paragraph, on the reinstatement of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo in the teaching sector [...], it considers that, based on the information provided, it cannot be understood that all aspects of the judgment have been fully complied with [because] the characteristics of this reinstatement as regards the type of institution in which she had been reinstated, the amount of her salary and the social benefits, do not correspond to what was ordered in the judgment.” The Commission explained that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo had been reinstated in an institution with a different educational level and with a much lower academic load than she had at the time of the facts, and that she had also been connected to the National School of Dramatic Arts and to the San Martín de Porres University. With regard to compliance with the third operative paragraph concerning the obligation of the State to adopt measures of domestic law to ensure that no adverse decision delivered in proceedings against the victim in the civil courts would have any legal effect, the Commission indicated that the State’s argument in its report attempted to revive the second proceeding and the judgment delivered in the civil courts against María Elena Loayza Tamayo for the crime of terrorism, by ordering the annulment of this judgment owing to the new legislation and, consequently, the re-opening of a new proceeding under the questioned norms, and this “disregards the [...] Court’s decision and jeopardizes the victims’ legal certainty.” As regards the fifth operative paragraph, on taking the necessary measures to adapt the anti-terrorist legislation to the American Convention, the Commission stated that the respective decision of the Peruvian Constitutional Court of January 4, 2003, was a step forward, but it did not resolve the essence of the matter, which means the entire terrorism legislation is still far from being compatible with the Convention. Lastly, the Commission acknowledged the efforts made by the State to comply with its obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for the violations committed against María Elena Loayza Tamayo, by re-opening the criminal investigation procedure in this case; however, it considered that, at that