10 9. As regards to the publication of the extract of the Judgment in France, the Court notes that the State must publish the chapter on Proven Facts, without footnotes, and operative paragraphs No. 1 to 16 of the Judgment of September 7, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), as established in operative paragraph No. 11. 10. That, as regards to the property and other items seized from Mr. Tibi at the time of his detention, the Court ordered “the restitution of said property and items by the State, [...] and, if this turned out to be impossible, it establish[ed], on grounds of equity, [an...] amount to be paid to Mr. Daniel Tibi for the property that was seized from him, which include the Volvo vehicle [...]”, as well as his “stones”. With regard to this, and taking into account the dispute between the parties as to the manner in which said order should be complied with, the Court observes that Ecuador is willing to give Mr. Tibi the proceeds of the auction sale of the Volvo vehicle that was seized from him; however, the victim refuses to accept said amount, for he considers that the price at which the vehicle was auctioned off falls below the commercial price it had at the time of the seizure. As regards to the “stones”, the State proceeded to identify some stones, and it alleges that they are the same that were seized at the time of Mr. Tibi's detention, according to the report prepared by Mr. Paul Ceballos-Abad. The victim maintains that they are not his “stones” and refuses to accept them. In view of the foregoing, it was requested that the Tribunal solve the situation, either in relation to the manner in which the State must return the property to the victim (supra Having Seen clause No. 2(d)(ii)(c)) or to whether or not the State must pay the amount set forth in paragraph 237.e of the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause No. 3(f)(ii)(c)). 11. That in light of the dispute between the State and the victim in relation to the “stones” that were seized from Mr. Daniel Tibi and their value, as well as in relation to the Volvo vehicle, and in light of the difficulty they are facing in reaching an agreement regarding said property, this Tribunal believes that the State must comply with the subsidiary obligation established by the Court in operative paragraph No. 14 (c), according to which, if restituting the property seized from Mr. Tibi should prove impossible, “the State shall pay an amount of €82,850.00 (eighty-two thousand, eight hundred and fifty euros), pursuant to paragraphs 237.e and 238 of the […] Judgment”. Said amount covers all the property seized from Mr. Tibi at the time of his detention, including the value of the Volvo vehicle, which was auctioned off. * * * 12. That, upon monitoring full compliance of the Judgment on merits and reparations delivered in the instant case, and after analyzing the information furnished by the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives in their briefs (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2, 3 and 4), the Court notes that it lacks sufficient information on the following measures, which have not been fully complied with: a) effective investigation into the facts of the instant case within a reasonable term, in order to identify, prosecute and punish all the perpetrators of the violations against Mr. Daniel Tibi. The outcome of this process shall be published (operative paragraph No. 10 of the Judgment of September 7, 2004);