4 corresponded to 28 years’ imprisonment, by the domestic courts of justice for the crime of continuous assassination” of Nicholas Chapman Blake. The State considered that it had complied fully with the judgment and “not partially as the next of kin of Mr. Chapman Blake and the Inter-American Commission had alleged”. It added that, during the criminal proceedings under domestic law, the Office of the Attorney General [Ministerio Público] had requested the courts of justice “to leave the criminal prosecution [against Candelario López Herrera, Hipólito Ramos García and Mario Cano Saucedo] open.” The domestic courts had done this, even though it had not been possible to find these individuals. Guatemala considered that this situation “[did] not imply […] that the State had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed by the judgment on reparations or those arising from its own domestic legal system concerning its obligation to prosecute and punish the crime […].” Therefore, it requested that the Court consider that the judgment had been complied with and decide to file the case. 17. The note of the Secretariat of October 4, 2002, in which, on the instructions of the President, it requested the State to present a detailed report on compliance with the judgment on reparations, by November 1, 2002, at the latest. 18. The brief of Guatemala of November 27, 2002, in which it indicated with regard to compliance with judgment that: it reiterated its previous reports, to the effect that Vicente Cifuentes López, who had been convicted for the death of Nicholas Chapman Blake, was in prison[,…] the National Civil Police had taken steps to capture [the other individuals involved in the facts], although this had not been possible to date because the whereabouts of those accused was not known [and ... the financial compensation had already been paid as ordered] by the Court. 19. 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 effectively and promptly with the judgment on reparations of January 22, 1999, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Blake case, as established in 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 decisions of the Court in the ninth and tenth considering paragraphs of this Order on compliance. 3. That the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, and also the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights must present their comments on the State’s report within two months of receiving it. […] 20. The notes of the Secretariat of August 12 and October 9, 2003, in which, on the instructions of the President, it reiterated to State that it should submit a report on the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations in this case, in accordance with the Order of the Court of November 27, 2002. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions.