3 of the appeal filed by Nelly Benavides on August 12, 1998, in the criminal action against Fausto Morales.” The communication of the Secretariat of January 19, 2000, addressed to the State, in which it repeated this request. 6. The brief of Ecuador of May 10, 2000, reiterating the information contained in its report of April 16, 1999, on compliance with the payment of compensation and the fact that the criminal proceeding was statute-barred (supra third having seen paragraph) and adding that “the Ecuadorian State, through the Procurator General, [had] initiated the necessary measures with the [...] Municipality of Esmeraldas, so that a street or square in that city [would] bear the name of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos […].” 7. The comments of the Inter-American Commission of August 4, 2000, indicating that “concerning the compensation established in the agreement between the victim’s next of kin and the [...] State and approved in the third operative paragraph of the judgment of the [...] Court,” the State has complied fully, and “regarding the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment of the [...] Court, which requires the State of Ecuador ‘to continue to investigate and to punish those responsible for the human rights violations [...]’, the Commission had to reiterate its previous comments to the effect that the State ha[d] not provided information on any initiative to continue the investigations or to proceed with the prosecution and punishment of the individuals who had already been accused.” The Commission also repeated its request that the State submit information on the measures taken to comply with the commitment to commemorate the name of the victim in streets, squares or schools. Lastly, regarding the measures adopted by the State to ratify the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Commission reported that the State had acceded to the Convention on February 8, 2000, and that ratification was pending. 8. The note of the Secretariat of August 23, 2000, in which, on the instructions of the whole Court, it requested the State to provide information on “a) whether any criminal, administrative or civil proceedings [was] pending before the Ecuadorian courts with regard to this case; b) the specific measures taken by the State to investigate and punish those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the judgment, and the results of such measures; and c) the specific measures adopted to commemorate the name of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos in ‘streets, squares or schools’ and the results of such measures.” The note of the Secretariat of October 25, 2000, and the note of the Secretariat of November 24, 2000, on the instructions of the whole Court, in both of which it repeated the request that the State present detailed information on the status of compliance with judgment in this case. 9. The brief of the State of February 15, 2001, in which it repeated that “[t]he Supreme Court of Justice, in a reasoned decision of August 7, 1998, had declared the criminal proceeding against the accused, Fausto Morales Villota, statute-barred,” and that “by a judicial decision of July 27, 2000, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice had ordered the lifting of the precautionary measures on the property and accounts of the accused, in whose favor the stay of proceedings and the statutebarred nature of the proceedings was declared.” The State also repeated that it had initiated the necessary measures so that a street or square in that city [Esmeraldas] or any other in the country would bear the name of the victim (supra third and sixth having seen paragraphs).