18 make its best efforts to comply with this issue of the Judgment as soon as possible.” 67. That according to the Judgment, the obligation to comply with a certain reparation measure becomes effective as from the date of service of the Judgment, independent of the term granted to that end. Hence, when issuing judgments, the Court supposes the State shall proceed in good faith to make the necessary proceedings and efforts to comply with the Judgment within the terms established.26 Consequently, since the Judgment was served on July 28, 2006, the State should have made proceedings to pay the compensation amounts as well as to reimburse costs and expenses. 68. That the Court is aware of the various administrative proceedings necessary at domestic level to make the payments ordered in the Judgment, as well as the obstacles resulting thereof. However, the lack of information by the State in the file regarding the proceedings made to comply with this obligation would evidence that Venezuela has been absolutely passive in this matter. 69. That Venezuela’s position that it shall make proceedings next year to pay such amounts in 2011 lacks justification. Such proceedings should have been made immediately after having been served the Judgment. Furthermore, the State cannot invoke economic hardship or its domestic laws to justify non-compliance with the obligations resulting from the American Convention, such as abiding by this Court’s decisions. 70. Therefore, given the time elapsed since the payment obligation by the State, this Court considers it is essential that the State adopts all domestic measures leading to payment of the compensation amounts and reimbursement of costs and expenses resulting from the Judgment, as soon as possible. Such compliance may not extend beyond fiscal year 2010. Furthermore, as pointed out by the State and indicated in paragraph 158 of the Judgment, such payment shall include any interests accrued on the amounts owed for falling into arrears. * * * 71. That the representatives considered “important to recall once again that there is a particularly serious situation in Venezuela regarding the effective compliance by the Venezuelan State with the Judgments issued by the Inter-American Court [...], since on December 18, 2008, the Constitutional Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela issued a decision whereby the Judgment of the InterAmerican Court was declared unenforceable […] in the case of Apitz et al. v. Venezuela.” “In such decision[,] the highest court of the Venezuelan State argued, inter alia[,] that compliance with the decisions issued by […] [Inter-American] Court is subordinated to the study made by the Constitutional Chamber of the High Court, determining whether it is favorable to the Venezuela domestic legislation. Likewise, the Constitutional Chamber noted that the Inter-American Court has incurred in usurpation of functions, a reason why such Chamber requests the National Executive to proceed to denounce the American Convention […] pursuant to the provisions of Article 78 thereof.” 72. That in relation to the statements by the representatives, the Court observes that the State has indicated its will to comply with orders in the Judgment in this case. To that end, the State pointed out in its last brief as follows: 26 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, considering clause 65.