8 for this since it duly sought to comply with the obligation. Furthermore, it noted that the documentation received from the Central Bank of Ecuador showed that Mr. Tibi’s account was closed when said transaction took place, which is evidenced in the copy of the Swift MT 910 message of January 8, 2008, “in which [the] correspondent bank confirms that it was not able to credit USD 117,137.55 because the account was closed.” Finally, the State reported that, by means of writ No. 6732 of December 24, 2009, it forwarded the information submitted by the Central Bank to CEJIL, showing the status of Mr. Daniel Tibi’s account. Based on the foregoing, the State expressed that it had confirmed what happened with said transaction and considers that it complied with this obligation. 26. Regarding the compensation for the property seized from Mr. Tibi, the representatives claimed that the payment was not made in full, given that Mr. Tibi has only received € 73,210.97 (seventy-three thousand two hundred and ten euros and ninety-seven cents) of the € 82,850.00 (eighty-two thousand eight hundred and fifty euros); therefore, the State still owes the difference which is € 9,639.03 (nine thousand six hundred and thirty-nine euros and three cents) in pecuniary damages. Regarding the State’s claim that Mr. Tibi’s account was closed at the time that the transaction took place on January 8, 2008, in their observations of October 24, 2010, the representatives indicated that on January 20, 2010, they informed the Department of Justice that the victim proved, by means of a certificate issued on December 3, 2009 by the bank itself, Le Credit Lyonnais, that his bank account has not been closed since “12/16/1999” and to date the information of this account remains unaltered; therefore, the State cannot disregard an order of the Court by transferring responsibility to the victim given the victim has shown that his bank account has never been closed. Consequently, they requested that the Court resolve this aspect of the reparation measure. 27. Regarding the transfer for pecuniary damages of April 2008 in favor of Mr. Tibi, the Commission noted the contradictory claims of the parties and observed that since both the representatives and the State requested it, due to the disagreement between the parties, it is necessary that the Court determines what needs to be done regarding the payment made to the victim. The Commission highlights that under the principles of international law it is necessary for the State to fully comply with the reparation orders issued by the Court. 28. In accordance with the information and documentation presented by the parties (supra Having Seens 3 and 4 and Considering Clauses 25 and 26), this Court notes that the State affirmed that on December 26, 2007 it ordered the transfer of USD 117,137.55 to the account of Mr. Tibi (one hundred and seventeen thousand one hundred and thirsty-six U.S. dollars and fifty-five cents) to cover the amount of € 82,850.00 (eighty-two thousand eight hundred and fifty euros). The transaction was rejected on January 8, 2008 because the bank account of Mr. Tibi was closed, according to the copy of the Swift MT 910 message of January 8, 2008 (supra Considering Clause 25). Finally, this transaction was completed on April 16, 2008. Furthermore, the representatives submitted a certificate from the Le Credit Lyonnais Bank, dated December 3, 2009, which was issued nine months after Ecuador attempted the first transaction, stating that the account had not been closed from 1999 onwards (supra Considering Clause 26). Also, the Court notes that in the communication of December 26, 2007, writ number 167-DNF-2007, issued by the Chief Financial Officer and Head 2 (3) of the Attorney General's Office of Ecuador, and sent to the Head of Current Accounts of Ecuador, it states that: [...] the Assistant Director of Human Rights of the Office of the Attorney General for the Nation informs the National Finance Department that, by means of the Order of September 22, 2006, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case of Tibi v. Ecuador, orders the State of Ecuador to pay Mr. Daniel David Tibi € 82,850.00 (EIGHTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY EUROS) to cover the total value of the seized goods, including precious stones and a Volvo car.