5 17. The report of the State of June 1, 2001, advising that “the position corresponding to María Elena Loayza Tamayo in the organizational structure of the Ministry of Education [was] available” and that “[the] reinstatement ha[d] not been carried out owing to Professor Loayza��s health problems”; that on April 26, 2001, “the Peruvian State had complied with the payment of the compensation ordered by the Court in favor of the victim and her next of kin and the payment of the fees and expenses in favor of Carolina Loayza Tamayo,” and that, in order to ensure that no adverse decision issued in the proceeding to which María Elena Loayza Tamayo had been subject in the civil courts would produce any effect, on May 4 [2001, the State presented] a brief to the Permanent Criminal Chamber to request the review and annulment of the decision of June 14, 1999, issued by Criminal Chamber “C” of the Supreme Court of Justice. 18. The comments of the Commission of August 17, 2001, on the State’s reports, in which it indicated that “it agree[d] that the reinstatement of Professor Loayza ‘c[ould] not be complied with if the victim [did] not return to Peru [...], but consider[ed] [...] that the payment of the remunerations she had not received c[ould] be made by a deposit or before an authorized representative named by Mrs. Loayza.” It added that it did not have any information on the measures that the State had adopted with regard to Decree Laws 25,475 and 25,659, the investigation of the facts, the identification and punishment of those responsible, and the adoption of the provisions of domestic law to comply with this obligation. 19. The report of the State of August 23, 2001, in which it indicated that “the Lima Criminal Provincial Prosecutor had decided to file the complaint for the offense against the life, body and health, the offense against personal freedom, and the offense against the public administration, because the criminal action was statutebarred, and had ordered a preliminary administrative investigation of the facts, by the Inspectorate of the Peruvian National Police in order to apply the punishments corresponding to functional responsibility. 20. The brief of the State of September 27, 2001, advising that, with regard to the measures of restitution, “[t]here was no impediment to the reinstatement of Mrs. [...]Loayza Tamayo in the organizational structure of the Ministry of Education.” Regarding payment of the compensation, it indicated that on April 26, 2001, the State had made this payment. As for the other forms of reparations, “the Executive [...] had established a Legislation Study and Review Commission [...] which concluded that Decree Laws Nos. 25475 (Crime of Terrorism) and 25659 (Crime of Treason) [were] unconstitutional and must be derogated.” Also, on May 15, 2001, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had declared null and void the Supreme Writ of Execution of the Transitory Criminal Court, which had declared that the judgment of the Court was non-enforceable, and ordered that the litigation should be forwarded to the original court for compliance. In view of the measures taken to date to comply with the judgment on reparations and the order on compliance of November 17, 1999, the State requested the Court to order that the case be filed. 21. The communication of the victim’s representative of October 15, 2001, forwarding a request for provisional measures to the Court, the contents of which were considered to form part of compliance. The representative indicated that, as regards the measures of restitution, the State had only reinstated the victim in her teaching position formally, without taking any step to ensure that this was