the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, in accordance
with paragraph 70 of this judgment.
To order that the State of Guatemala make the payments indicated in operative
paragraph 2 within six months of the notification of this judgment.
To order that the payments ordered in this judgment shall be exempt from any
existing or future tax or duty.

To monitor compliance with this judgment.

The brief of the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State” or “Guatemala”)
of July 20, 1999, in which it submitted a request for an extension in order to comply
with the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, because
“Guatemala ha[d] serious difficulties in finding the budgetary means to make the
payment ordered by the […] Court […], because when the 1999 Income and
Expenditure Budget of the State was prepared and adopted, the judgment on
reparations had not been delivered or notified […].” In this respect, Guatemala
requested the authorization of the Court to enable it “to comply with the payment
[for reparations and reimbursement of expenses] in payments to be carried forward
over future years, starting in 2000.”
The first report of the State of July 26, 1999, in which it indicated that the
proceeding against Vicente Cifuentes López, alleged perpetrator of the assassination
of Nicholas Chapman Blake, was at the stage of “the joint hearing of the parties so
that they [could] contribute and describe the evidence in the case” and that,
subsequently, the Sentencing Court would proceed to establish the date for the
debate that it had annulled due to “procedural errors.”
The communications of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and of the
representatives of the next of kin of Nicholas Chapman Blake, of August 27 and
September 3, 1999, respectively, in which they presented their comments on the
State’s brief of July 20, 1999. In these communications they rejected Guatemala’s
request to comply with payments carried forward as of 2000 and proposed, as an
alternative, that the State should make the total payment of the compensation,
together with the interest accrued, in January 2000.
The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of
February 7, 2000, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court
(hereinafter “the President”), it requested the State to present its biannual report on
compliance with the first operative paragraph of the judgment in this case, and to
submit a report on compliance with the other operative paragraphs of the judgment.
The brief of the representative of the victim’s next of kin of March 3, 2000,
advising that “the family ha[d] not received any payment in reparation” and
requesting information in that regard.
The communication of the Secretariat of March 6, 2000, informing the
representatives of the victim’s next of kin on the status of compliance in this case.
The note of the same day, in which the Secretariat reiterated to the State the
request that it present the above-mentioned reports (supra sixth having seen
paragraph), and granted it a new time limit until March 24, 2000.

The brief of the State of March 30, 2000, presenting its biannual report and

Select target paragraph3