ended for personal services. Lastly, regarding the reinstatement to a public university, the Court notes that the State has reported on the steps taken regarding three universities, without obtaining a favorable response from them. 10. As such, considering the information presented by the parties, the Court considers that the State: i) has fulfilled its obligation to reinstate Mrs. Loayza Tamayo in the Educational Center 2057 “José Gabriel Condorcanqui”; ii) has yet to clarify the modality under which Mrs. Loayza Tamayo will work at the National School of Dramatic Arts. Thus, it must explain the circumstances under which the Departmental Resolution No. 1417-2006-ED of September 20, 2006, was issued and the possible conformity of said measure with that ordered in the Judgment; iii) still pending is the realization of the reinstatement of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo to an educational university. The Court recognizes that it no longer is of the State's obligation to reinstate the victim to the teaching sector of the University of San Martin de Porres, because at the request of the State, this institution denied this possibility based on their private motivations. However, while recognizing the various steps taken by the State, the Court recalls that the obligation at hand is resultoriented, and to that extent, the corresponding obligation will not be satisfied until the victim is reinstated at a university, and iv) still pending is the payment of fees and social benefits foregone by the victim from the time of her detention until her reinstatement at the three aforementioned educational institutions. In response to information provided by the State regarding the partial payment of the severance payments of compensation for lost income for the Education Center 2057, the Court anticipates the documentary evidence attesting to such disbursement. 11. It is therefore imperative that the State submit accurate and detailed information on a) the employment status under which Mrs. Loayza Tamayo was reinstated and the circumstances in which she ceased to work at the National School of Dramatic Arts; b) internal efforts made and the alternatives explored for the reinstatement of the victim in the teaching sector at a university, based on her expressed willingness to perform for a wide range of academic institutions according to her broad professional background, and c) the internal efforts made to finalize the payment of fees and social benefits foregone by the victim. 12. For these reasons, the Court finds that the State has partially complied with this obligation by way of the reinstatement of the victim to two of the educational institutions in which she worked at the time of her arrest. Thus, the obligation remains regarding the reinstatement of the victim to the teaching staff of a university and payment of all the fees and benefits forgone by the victim at the three educational institutions in which she worked. Specifically, despite the failure to reinstate the victim at the University of San Martin de Porres (supra Considering clause 6 and 10), the State shall push forward the procedures for obtaining the social benefits of the victim for the time she worked at that institution. 5