are being applied to the amounts paid in compensation,” which is contrary to the Judgment. Lastly, the Commission reminded the State that it must pay overdue interest corresponding to its delay in paying compensation. 12. The Court positively assesses the State’s payments made to date in compliance with its obligation. However, it also notes that certain discrepancies exist between the parties with respect to these payments. In the next section, the Tribunal will proceed to analyze each of these discrepancies. They are: i) the applicable interest rate; ii) the allocation of the payments and the calculation of delay; iii) the alleged interest owed for tax withholdings; and, iv) the request to “release the positive account balance” as ordered by the Court for the benefit of Tomasa Alves de Lima. i) Applicable interest rate 13. Concerning this issue, the Tribunal recalls the Judgment’s provision that the State must comply with its obligations “through payment in dollars of the United States of America or in an equivalent amount of Argentine currency, with the relevant rate of exchange indicated in New York, United States of America, on the day prior to payment.”10 Therefore, the applicable exchange rate for the payments made in Argentine pesos to Mr. Juan Francisco Bueno Alves, Ms. Ivonne Miriam Bueno, and Mr. Juan Francisco Bueno should have been the one indicated on the New York Stock Exchange on the day before payment was made, and not the one offered by the representative of the National Bank of Argentina. The Court also observes that while the State utilized the applicable exchange rate at the moment in which the corresponding payment orders were effected, the representative argued that the correct rate was the one in effect at the moment in which the deposits were actually made to Mr. Bueno Alves’s account. In this regard, the Tribunal considers that it is not reasonable to require the State to foresee, at the time of making the payment order, what the interest rate will be when payment is actually effected. This is true unless the difference causes prejudice to the victim for reasons attributable to the State, which has not been proven in this case. 14. The Court notes that the State issued the payment order to Mr. Bueno Alves and effectuated a transfer on September 30, 2009, in which it utilized an exchange rate of $3,843 Argentine pesos for each dollar of the United States of America. The rate in New York on the day before was $3.8432 Argentine pesos for each dollar of the United States of America.11 Consequently, the Court regards the exchange rate used by the State to be the correct one. Regarding Ivonne Miriam Bueno and Juan Francisco Bueno, the State issued payment orders on December 23, 2009, and utilized an exchange rate of $3,795 Argentine pesos for each dollar of the United States of America. The rate in New York the day before was $3,8008 Argentine pesos for each dollar of the United States of America.12 Accordingly, the Court finds that the difference between the two rates is negligible and does not justify ordering the State to pay another amount. 10 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 224. 11 US dollar-Argentine peso exchange rate taken from “The Wall Street Journal.” Available at: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-forex-20090929.html?mod=mdc_pastcalendar. 12 US dollar-Argentine peso exchange rate taken from “The Wall Street Journal.” Available at: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-forex-20091222.html?mod=mdc_pastcalendar. 7