8 training program. It also indicated that “the organization of annual seminars and the distribution of manuals of procedures had been planned in order to ensure that the conduct [of public servants] was adapted to Inter-American and constitutional law.” 16. That, in a communication of April 12, 2007, the representatives indicated that, in previous meetings with the State, it had been agreed to set up an inter-institutional committee and establish the educational and training program by means of a ministerial decree, for which the representatives had prepared and submitted a draft document. In their observations of November 17, 2008, the representatives indicated that, in July that year, they had held a meeting with officials of the Ecuadorean Ministry of Justice, who had informed them of a project to provide human rights training to public officials that would be implemented towards the end of 2008. However, the representatives stated that they had received no further information in this regard. 17. That, in its observations of May 1, 2007, the Commission expressed its concern owing to the delay in the implementation of the human rights training program for public officials. Subsequently, in observations of September 13, 2007, and December 29, 2008, the Commission noted that the reports on compliance with the judgment did not include any information concerning the thirteenth operative paragraph (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). 18. That, based on the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that although the State has taken some steps to implement the measures ordered by the Court concerning the establishment of a training program and the creation of the interinstitutional committee, it also finds that it has insufficient information to assess the current status of compliance with the thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment. Consequently, the Court finds that the State must submit updated and detailed information on the steps taken in this regard. * * * 19. That, regarding the fourteenth operative paragraph, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1) concerning compensation for pecuniary damage (supra Having Seen paragraph 1), the State advised that, by Resolution No. 100 of the National Human and Financial Resources Administrative Department of the Attorney General’s Office, issued on May 17, 2006, it had ordered that “all necessary steps should be taken to proceed to pay the compensation ordered by the Court” …]. Hence, the payment of compensation for pecuniary damage to Daniel Tibi and Beatrice Baruet had been ordered. 20. That, with regard to subparagraph (b) of the fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1), concerning the return of the property that had been seized or the payment of €82,850.00 (eighty-two thousand eight hundred and fifty euros) in compensation for the seizure of Mr. Tibi’s property, in the attachments to the information presented on September 9, 2008, the State substantiated that it had made a transfer of US$117,137.55 (one hundred and seventeen thousand one hundred and thirtyseven United States dollars and fifty-five cents) to the account of Daniel Tibi for this concept. 21. That, in response to the fifteenth operative paragraph, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), and the sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1) concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and the payment of costs and expenses, the State advised that, by means of the said Resolution No. 100, it had