2 inter alia: […] 2. [t]hat in order to determine the indemnity that may correspond to the pecuniary damage caused to Mr. Ivcher, attention must be paid to the result coming from the terms of the Peruvian legislation, formulating the respective claims before the competent national authorities in order to resolve them. 4. The Order of the Inter-American Court of September 21, 2005, regarding the Supervision of Compliance of the Judgment in the present case, in which it declared: 1. [t]hat it will keep open the procedure of supervision of compliance of the points pending fulfillment in the present case, namely: a) “[…] to investigate the facts that generated the violations established in the […] Judgment to identify and sanction those responsible for such violations,” (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment of February 6, 2001); b) “[…] to facilitate the conditions so that Baruch Ivcher Bronstein may take the steps necessary to recuperate the use and enjoyment of his rights as a majority shareholder of the Latin-American Radio-Diffusion Company S.A., as he was until August 1, 1997, in the terms of the internal legislation. The compensation related to the dividends and the other payments that he was due as a majority shareholder and employee of said Company, internal law must equally be applied. For all of this, the respective request must be submitted to the competent national authorities,” (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment of February 6, 2001); c) “[…] to pay Baruch Ivcher Bronstein an indemnity of US$20,000 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Peruvian currency at the moment the payment is made for moral damages,” (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment of February 6, 2001)[,] and d) “[…] to pay Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, as a reimbursement of costs and expenses generated in the internal jurisdiction and in the international jurisdiction, the sum of US$50,000 (fifty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Peruvian currency at the moment the payment is made.” (tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment of February 6, 2001). […] 5. The Order of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) of February 27, 2009, through which, in the exercise of the powers of the Court for the supervision of compliance with its decisions, and in consultation with the other Judges of the Tribunal, decided to call a meeting with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”), the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) and the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) to a private hearing with the goal that the Tribunal obtain information from the State regarding the fulfillment of the Judgments issued in this case, and to hear the observations of the Commission and the representatives in this respect. 6. The private hearing was held during the XXXVII Extraordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Court in the city of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, at the Supreme Court of Justice on March 31, 2009.1 During the course of said private hearing, the State, 1 The following people appeared at the hearing: Mr. Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Specialist of the Executive Secretary; for the representatives, Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, José Carlos Ugaz Sánchez-Moreno and Gustavo Raúl Gómez Morante; and for the State, Ms. Delia Muñoz Muñoz, Agent and Public Supranational Specialized Attorney, and Mr. Antenor José Escalante González, Attorney of the National Superintendence of Tax Administration – SUNAT and Colón Heraldo Cruz Negrón, Commissioner of National Contributing Principals of SUNAT.