2 1. Resolves that the acquiescence of the State of Ecuador in the claims made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is proper and, consequently, the facts that motivated the instant case are no longer in dispute; 2. Takes note of the Ecuadorian State’s acknowledgment of its international responsibility and declares, in keeping with the terms of that acknowledgement, that in the case of Ms. Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, the State violated the rights protected by Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof; 3. In the matter of reparations, approves the agreement between the State of Ecuador and the victim’s next of kin regarding the nature and amount of said reparations; 4. Requires the State of Ecuador to continue to investigate and punish those responsible for the human rights violations to which this judgment refers; 5. Reserves the right to monitor compliance with the obligations established in this judgment. 2. The request of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of February 19, 1999, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it called upon the State of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) to submit a report on compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court on June 19, 1998, which “should contain a detailed account of the measures taken to comply with the terms of the agreement approved by the Court [...] and with the obligation to ‘continue the investigations in order to punish those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [the] judgment’ […].” 3. The brief of the State of April 16, 1999, in which it advised that the “Ministry of Finance and Public Credit ha[d] paid the amount [...] of the compensation granted to the next of kin of Professor Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, as ordered by the Court.” It also stated 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,” among other reasons. 4. The communication of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of June 22, 1999, submitting its comments on the State’s report on compliance with the judgment in this case. It indicated that Ecuador had complied with payment of the compensation stipulated in the Court’s judgment. With regard to the investigations in order to punish those responsible for the human rights violations, “[t]he State ha[d] not provided any information about measures taken to continue the investigations aimed at punishing those responsible.” In addition, the Commission stated that, concerning the commitment made by the State, which “through the Office of the State Attorney w[ould] instruct the Ministry of Education and Culture and the municipalities in the country, in exercise of their legal authorities, to commemorate the name of Ms. Consuelo Benavides Cevallos in streets, squares or schools,” there is no information about the steps taken by the competent authorities in this respect. 5. The note of the Secretariat of November 30, 1999, in which, on the instructions of the Court in plenary, it requested the State “to provide detailed information on the measures taken to continue the investigations in order to find and file proceedings with regard to Jorge Gracián Villota and on the status of the results