5 Sonia Martha Quispe Valle”, and they explained that Norma Haydee Quispe Valle “authorized and requested that the check with an advance on the economic reparation due to her be issued to her sister Sonia Martha Quispe”. They also reported that they had omitted listing as next of kin of victim Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, his mother, Celestina Alejandro Cristóbal, his wife, Gregoria Medina Caurino, and his son, Elías Cirilo Rosales Caurino (or Medina), that “Clotilde Portella Blas as legal guardian for Rocío Rosales Capillo, received and cashed the check on her behalf”, and that they had omitted listing as beneficiaries of the reparations pertaining to victim Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo “her sister Gladis Sonia Rubina Arquiñigo and her aunt Virgilia Arquiñigo Huerta”. 16. On October 20, 2001 the State sent a brief to which it attached appendices A and B of the agreement. The State also listed the names of the next of kin of victim Lucio Quispe Huanaco who had been proposed as beneficiaries of the reparations; explained that “upon a request by Miss Norma Haydee Quispe [V]alle the check with an advance on the reparation was issued, in accordance with her request, to her sister Sonia Martha Quispe Valle”; the State pointed out that Gregoria Medina Caurino and Elías Cirilo Rosales Caurino (or Medina) are beneficiaries of reparations pertaining to victim Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, and that “Clotilde Portella Blas as legal tutor for Rocío Rosales Capillo, received and cashed the check on her behalf”; the State explained that they had omitted listing as beneficiaries of the reparations pertaining to victim Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo “her sister Gladis Sonia Rubina Arquiñigo and her aunt Virgilia Arquiñigo Huerta”. 17. On November 27, 2001 the Secretariat, following instructions by the Court, informed the Commission that it followed from the various briefs submitted to the Court that the Commission did not appear at the subscription and signing of the agreement, nor did it send it to the Court. Therefore, in view of the provisions of article nine of the agreement, the Court requested that the Commission inform the Court, within 48 hours, whether it was compliant with what had been agreed by the State, the victims, their next of kin and their representatives, and pointed out that, if it did not receive an answer within the term stated, the Court would understand that the Commission was in compliance with the agreement on reparations. 18. On November 28, 2001 the Commission filed a brief in which it stated to the Court its compliance with the agreement and requested its “confirmation […] in the judgment on reparations”. IV DUTY TO MAKE REPARATIONS AGREEMENT ON REPARATIONS 19. Article 63(1) of the American Convention is applicable to the matter of reparations, where it reads: 1. If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party (not underlined in the original text). 20. Article 56 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: