7. The arguments of the parties and of the Commission at the private hearing on compliance with the pending aspects of the Judgment held at the seat of the Court on May 23, 2013. 1 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. In this case, three measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment remain pending compliance (supra having seen paragraph 2). Nevertheless, owing to a request of the parties (infra considering paragraphs 4 and 5), in this Order the Court will only analyze the arguments concerning payment of the compensation ordered for nonpecuniary damage in favor of Julio Sánchez. The Court will examine and rule on compliance with the other two pending measures of reparation in due course. 3. Regarding the payment of the compensation to Julio Sánchez, the Court takes note that, according to the parties and the Commission, Mr. Sánchez is disappeared. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in the Order of November 21, 2007, it considered that “compliance with this obligation is directly related to the information that the representatives of the victim must present concerning the procedure to declare the presumed death of Julio Sánchez and the corresponding inheritance process.” 2 4. During the private hearing held in this case (supra having seen paragraph 7), the State indicated that “the mandate of the Judgment and the provisions that regulate the institutions of the financial system with regard to the identification of the client for the purposes of the deposit have not allowed the State to deliver the amount corresponding to the compensation for Julio Sánchez through the banking system.” Thus, Honduras proposed to consign the amount owed to the Court, so that, subsequently, the representatives could withdraw the money. In addition, following the hearing, the State also indicated that it could deposit the compensation in the account of one of the organizations representing the victim, “provided that the Inter-American Court […] issues an Order deciding [this].” 5. The representatives expressed their agreement to the State’s offer. In this regard, they presented the banking information of COFADEH, one of the organizations that represent the victims in this case, “in order to facilitate payment of the compensation.” They indicated that, “when it has received the compensation, [the organization] undertakes to deliver the amount to the sole heir of Julio Sánchez, [his mother, María] Dominga Sánchez.” In addition, it asked the Court “to issue an order pursuant to the request of the State of Honduras.” 6. The Commission emphasized that “both parties have asked the Court to issue an order allowing the deposit to be made in the account indicated by the representatives”; consequently, it “consider[ed] that the order that the […] Court eventually issues will make a positive contribution to definitive compliance with this aspect of the Judgment.” 1 Under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court held the private hearing with a team of judges composed of: Diego García-Sayán, President, Alberto Pérez Pérez and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot. At this hearing, the following also appeared: for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Silvia Serrano Guzmán, adviser; for the representatives of the victims: Mery Agurcia, Marcia Aguiluz, Paola Limón, Sergio Pacheco and Léa Gaudry, and for the State of Honduras: Ethel Suyapa Deras Enamorado, Attorney General; Maura Jacqueline Portillo, Principal Consultant, and Jhon Cesar Mejía, Prosecutor attached to the La Esperanza Prosecution Service, Intibucá. 2 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 21, 2007, eleventh considering paragraph, subparagraph (a). 2