-6“the payment order was in the hands of the Laws and Decrees Department of the Presidential Building.” 9. The brief of March 22, 2006 whereby, after securing a deadline extension from the President, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted its observations to the State’s report (supra Having Seen clause No. 7), as well as to the communications filed by the State on October 19 and November 28, 2005 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 4 and No. 5) regarding compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), further to the third operative paragraph of the Court’s Order of September 12, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). In such brief, the Inter-American Commission basically stated as follows: a) that “it has become significantly concerned over the actual fulfillment of the obligations that are still pending compliance;” b) as regards the nullification of the judgment rendered by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on November 12, 1999 and all the measures it orders, “so far, the Supreme Court has not ordered reimbursement of the amount of ¢63,811,000.00” and, therefore, the termination measures ordered by the Court “have not been complied with” and have not been effective in “terminating the effects of the domestic judgment.” The State’s responsibility in the Inter-American proceeding “is whole,” and the State “cannot rely on municipal law provisions or difficulties arising from the separation of powers, or domestic court decisions” to avoid such responsibility and, consequently, it does not consider it necessary for the system’s bodies to “rule on a difference of opinion […] between the agents of the State acting before the Court and the Costa Rican Judiciary,” in addition to the fact that “the deadline for compliance with the aforementioned obligations expired over one year ago.” “[T]he obligation set forth in the fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment [of the Inter-American Court] has been only partially fulfilled, as the State has not taken the judicial, administrative or any other measures required to reimburse the party that posted the bond, namely the La Nación newspaper, the amount paid to the State.” It requested that the Court declare that “compliance with t[he] obligation to nullify […] paragraphs [three and seven] of the judgment rendered on November 12, 1999 by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José” “described in items 3 and 7 of paragraph 195 of the Court’s Judgment” “is still pending;” c) regarding the obligation to adjust the domestic legal system to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 2 thereof, “the bill for the enactment of the ‘Relaxation of Criminal Cassation Requirements Law’ does, to a certain extent, relax [said remedy]” to bring it in line with the aforementioned provision. However, “it has not yet been passed by the Legislative Branch […] and, therefore, it is a part of a process for compliance ‘within a reasonable time period’ that is to be monitored by the Court;” and d) regarding payment of non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of expenses to Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa, “as recognized by the State in its report […], it still has not paid the amount of arrearage interest due on account of the delay.” The Commission expects this obligation to “be soon discharged”