in a brief filed on October 16, 1995.160 The municipality filed a brief on April 26, 1996, reporting that it had “taken all measures to obtain the resources from the central authorities to pay the amount owed, but they have not provided it; therefore, reasons of force majeure make it impossible to execute the judgment in question.”161 The court issued orders for the submission of helpful evidence on May 6, 1996, to the municipal treasury of Parral for a report on its funds; to the Office of the Comptroller General, for a report on the mayor’s inability to issue a payment order; and to the Ministry of the Interior to respond to the municipality’s communiqué requesting funds to pay the debt.162 The case file shows no evidence that this information was supplied. 83. The plaintiffs submitted a request on July 31, 1996 for the municipality’s assets to be attached,163 and the relevant order was issued that same day.164 Three vehicles belonging to the municipality were seized on February 25, 1997.165 The municipality filed an objection to the attachment on March 4, 1997, arguing that the vehicles were municipal property intended for the provision of services, and therefore were not subject to attachment.166 The court granted the municipality’s request in an order on May 14, 1997, and exempted the vehicles from attachment.167 84. The parties agreed on a payment plan on June 15, 1999, by which the municipality committed to pay a percentage of the total debt in installments and to sue the national treasury for funds to pay the rest of the amount owed. Point three of the agreement stipulated, “the municipality recognizes the right of the claimants as held in the final verdict in this case, and both parties commit to take measures with the central government to process payment of the balance due.”168 The assessment of the settlement amount still owed was updated in September, 1999, to CLP 115,683,632.169 The plaintiffs asked the court on August 28, 2006, to order the municipality to submit a report on measures undertaken with the central government to obtain the funds for payment of the debt and a progress report on the status of the lawsuit against the 160 Cf. Increase to the assessment submitted by a public accountant to the Court of First Instance of Parral on October 16, 1995 (evidence file, folio 17760). 161 Brief filed by Germain Morales on behalf of the municipality before the Court of First Instance of Parral, April 26, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17772). 162 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, May 6, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17775). 163 Cf. Brief filed by Ewaldo Schulz Ibáñez before the Court of First Instance of Parral, July 31, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17776). 164 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, July 31, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17777). 165 Cf. Record by the Process Server for Major Assets, February 25, 1995 (evidence file, folio 17786). 166 Cf. Brief filed by Germain Morales Morales on behalf of the municipality before the Court of First Instance of Parral , March 4, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17787 and 17788). 167 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, May 14, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17790 and 17791). 168 Payment plan agreed to between [Alexandra] Orrego Da Silva and Antonio César Valero Nader for the plaintiffs and the mayor of Parral (evidence file, folio 17798). An amendment to the payment plan was filed on September 15, 1999, extending the time limits for the lawsuit against the national treasury and clarifying the means for issuing each payment (amendment to the payment agreement signed between [Alexandra] Orrego Da Silvia and Germain Morales), filed on September 15, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17804) 169 Cf. Assessment submitted by a public accountant to the Court of First Instance of Parral on an illegible date in September, 1999 (evidence file, folio 17805 and 17806). 29