5 asking them to forward different information. That the State and the representatives have not forwarded the information requested within the terms set for that effect. 8. That due to that stated in the previous Considering Clause the Court considers that the State and the representatives have not complied with the duty to inform the Tribunal in a timely manner. * * * 9. That on August 8, 2006 the State indicated, inter alia, that it signed a contract for the constitution of a trust with Corporación Financiera Nacional (hereinafter “the CFN”) in benefit of the girl Micaela Suárez Ramadán, but that the text of said contract was revised by the representative of the victim and there are still disagreements regarding the execution of this operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). Regarding the document provided by the State, the representative of the victim argued that (f. 880): a) the trust in reference should not be civil but commercial; b) the CFN does not have the legal capacity to manage the trust in favor of a beneficiary who is an individual; c) it is evident from the text of the Judgment on reparations that the administration of the trust may not be in the hands of a State entity; d) the contract in question includes the obligation to pay a commission on the amount with which the trust is created, which should be paid directly by the State, and e) the contract includes a mediating clause that attributes the competence to solve conflicts regarding the contract to the Chamber of Commerce of Quito, which would violate the judgment issued by the Court, since according to the latter, the monitoring of compliance with its decision constitutes an attribution of the Tribunal itself. 10. That the State requested that the Court analyze said contract in order to evaluate if it meets the parameters ordered in the Judgment on reparations. 11. That on January 20, 2006 the State acknowledged that the late compliance in the constitution of the trust has generated due interests. 12. That the Commission considered that “[the] State’s delay” in compliance with this paragraph of the Judgment “[…] is inexcusable”. observations to a State’s report, no later than February 23, 2006, request that was reiterated on March 16, 2006. Said brief was received on April 20, 2006; Note of the Secretariat of February 1, 2007, reiterated on March 14th and April 26, 2007, through which it asked the representative to present its observations to the last State report, having the term granted for it expired on January 18, 2007. The brief of observations has not yet been presented.