4 10. The comments of the Inter-American Commission of April 12, 2001, stating that “[n]either [the last] report of the State, nor is previous reports [had mentioned] the least effort or measure initiated since delivery of the [...] Court’s judgment to clarify individual responsibility for the abduction, clandestine detention, torture and extrajudicial execution of Professor Consuelo Benavides.” The Commission added that “the domestic judicial mechanisms ha[d] served to obstruct justice to the point of declaring the stay of proceedings and/or the statute-barred nature of any action filed by the Benavides family” and that the State had not provided information on the measures taken to commemorate the name of Professor Benavides, which was an essential element of the agreement, “partly because the victim’s parent died before seeing compliance with this commitment.” 11. The note of the Secretariat of December 6, 2001, in which, on the instruction of the Court, it requested the State to present a report on compliance by January 7, 2002, at the latest, which should include “a detailed account of the measures taken to comply with the judgment and, particularly the elements relating to the specific measures taken by the State to investigate and to punish those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the judgment on merits, and the results of such measures.” 12. The note of the Secretariat of March 1, 2002, in which, on the instructions of the Court, it reiterated to the State that it should present a report on the status of compliance with the judgment of June 19, 1998, and indicated that “when it has received the reply, the Court w[ould] assess the degree of compliance with judgment and, in light of the information provided, w[ould] decide whether to transmit a report to the OAS General Assembly, on the State’s failure to comply with the judgment of the Court, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 13. The note of the Commission of June 6, 2002, in which it forwarded to the Court the information submitted by Ecuador, to the effect that “[i]t had paid the amount [...] of the compensation granted to the next of kin of Professor Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, as ordered by the Court”; that the “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, because the crime of which he was accused is punishable by imprisonment and therefore becomes statute-barred ten years after the issue of the court order to investigate the alleged crime,” and that “as a result of this reasoned decision issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, pursuant to the legislation in force at that time, the criminal action against the Navy personnel [...] ha[d] been terminated and, therefore, it [was not possible] to file a new action for the same facts.” Lastly, it stated that the “Procurator General of the State [had been] informed that there [were] two streets in Ecuador with the name of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos”. 14. The Order of the Inter-American Court of November 27, 2002, in which it decided: 1. That the State had the obligation to take all necessary measures to comply fully and promptly with the judgment of June 19, 1998, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Benavides Cevallos case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. That the State must present to the Court, by March 30, 2003, at the latest, a detailed report on the measures taken to comply with the decision of the Court in the seventh considering paragraph of this Order.