8 v. given that the program began on November 9, 2007, she requested an urgent ruling by the Court, ordering the State to comply with the Judgment and provide her with a grant for training as well as to adopt any other necessary measures for her to pursue training and professional development, such as authorization to leave the country. f) in regards to the duty to re-enter Ms. De La Cruz Flores in the relevant retirement register, the State has failed to comply with this duty and, therefore, with the payment of the contributions to the social security system for the years she was arbitrarily held in custody. g) in regards to the obligation to publish the section entitled “Proven Facts” as well as operative paragraphs 1 to 3 of the declaratory part of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in another daily newspaper with national circulation, on December 29, 2005, the pertinent sections of the Judgment were published in El Comercio newspaper. However, she was not notified on time of such publication by the State; rather, she learned about it through third parties. 4. The communications submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on February 16, 2005, July 3, 2006 and May 7, 2007, pointing out, inter alia, that: a) in regards to the duty to comply with the right to freedom from ex post facto laws and the requirements of due process in the new proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores: i. in relation to the second proceeding, evidence suggests that the fundamental principles and rights emphasized by the Inter-American Court in its Judgment have not been observed in said proceeding. First, in the judgment of conviction of July 10, 2006, reference was made to evidence obtained during the first proceeding conducted by “faceless judges.” Secondly, there was no indication of the time of the acts giving rise to the charges of membership in a terrorist organization against Ms. De La Cruz Flores or the criminal legislation in force at that time, which affects the punishment to be imposed as well as the running of the statute of limitations for the criminal action. In addition, Decree Law No. 25475 was applied again in the aforesaid judgment, which application the Court had already found contrary to the right to freedom from ex post facto laws; ii. the Commission trusts that the Corte Suprema (Supreme Court of Peru), in its ruling on the remedies pending before it, will hold the criminal action barred by the statute of limitations, and iii. with regard to the first detention and proceeding, the State has given no reasons to justify a second criminal prosecution for a crime of which the victim had been finally acquitted in 2000, and that such final judgment should have been res judicata. b) in regards to the obligation of the State to pay the amounts specified in the Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage and