13 of that legislative body, satisfies the requirements set out in the Judgment for review by a higher court pursuant to the Convention”. Even though the representatives once again acknowledged the efforts, they requested the Court to declare that the State has failed to comply with this reparation measure pursuant to the Judgment. 27. That in the hearing for monitoring compliance the Inter-American Commission celebrated and acknowledged the State’s efforts, recalled the observations set out in its various briefs and pointed out that “[the] reforms should be reflected in a more effective procedure” and that it expects a qualitative change. It stated that, before deeming this item in the Judgment complied with, “in view of the fact that a new bill has been introduced in the Legislative Assembly […], it is necessary to [wait] for the outcome of that new process of reform first and then for more appropriate information on the effectiveness of the procedural law reform, not in numerical terms but in real terms". 28. That the Inter-American Court positively values the passage of Law No. 8503 called the “Law Extending Criminal Review Proceedings” and the fact that such law was enacted one year and seven months after the Judgment was notified. Furthermore, the Court also values the fact that the Costa Rican Judiciary adopted “immediate measures”, even before enacting the Law Extending Criminal Review Proceedings in order to bring judicial practice into conformity with the terms of the Judgment (supra Considering clause No. 19.i). 29. That the Court observes that the representatives and the Inter-American Commission have positively valued the State’s efforts associated with the reform introduced through the Law Extending Criminal Review Proceedings, even though they find such modifications inadequate in terms of deeming this reparation measure complied with. For its part, the Court appreciates the information furnished by the State that a legislative process is currently underway in connection with compliance with the Judgment, among other aspects. In view of the information provided by the parties, the Inter-American Court takes notice of the evolution of the compliance process and deems it convenient to defer its evaluation until the State furnishes current information on the progress and outcome thereof. * * * 30. That, with regard to the obligation to pay default interest incurred by virtue of paying Mr. Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursing him for expenses after the expiration of the term set forth in the Judgment (operative paragraphs No. 6, 7 and 9), the State informed that, through tender No. 06T20 of May 24, 2006, it deposited one hundred and fifty-five, seven hundred and ninety-nine colones (CRC 155,799.00) for Mr. Herrera-Ulloa as default interest. The State attached the documents evidencing the deposit. 31. That the representatives ratified that the above-mentioned amount was indeed deposited in favor of the victim. However, they reported that Mr. Herrera-Ulloa stated that such amount failed to cover the entire default interested owed, surely owing to a time lapse between the time the payment order was issued and the time the funds were made available. In spite of this, Mr. Herrera-Ulloa considered that, even though there is a small