3 7. that the State should pay on account of costs and expenses, the sum of US$23.000,00 (twenty-three thousand US dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to the next of kin and representatives of the victims […]. 8. that the State should comply with the reparations measures set forth in the […] Judgment within six months upon notice of submission thereof. […] 10. that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights shall supervise the fulfillment of [the] Judgment and shall terminate the […] Case once the State has fully complied with it. 3. The March 6, 2002 note to the Secretariat, served the following day to the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State”) together with the Judgment on the reparations; therefore, its compliance deadline was due on September 7, 2002, except the delivery of the mortal remains of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez, and the State had deadline until December 2002 at the latest. 4. The brief by Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) on September 10, 2002, requesting the State to submit a report on the fulfillment of the Judgment since the deadline to report thereof was due on September 7, 2002 (supra Having Seen 3), a requirement that was reiterated by the Secretariat on November 1 and December 11, 2002. 5. The February 19, 2003 State communication, wherein it reported on the pecuniary damage payment dictated by the Tribunal on account of some formalities to find the mortal remains of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez and some steps related to the publication of the Judgment aimed at “fulfilling the Judgment on reparations.” 6. The Secretariat brief on the same date, following instructions by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), called upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and the representatives and next of kin of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives of the victims”) the delivery of observations on the first report on the fulfillment of the Judgment on reparations filed by the State (supra Having Seen 5). 7. The March 7, 2003 State brief, wherein it reported on the publication in the Official Gazette and another national newspaper as stipulated by the Court in its operative paragraph three of the Judgment on reparations. However, it only submitted the publication in La Hora Newspaper on March 3, 2003. 8. The March 13, 2003 State communications, wherein it called upon the Commission and the representatives of the victims to submit observations on the State report on March 7, 2003 (supra Having Seen 7). 9. The brief by the representatives of the victims on March 21, 2003, wherein they stated their acceptance of the damage payment stipulated by the Tribunal in its operative paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 2). Moreover, they stated that the publications by the State “did not compl[y] with the stipulations of the […] Court [… because they provide] a capricious summary of the proven facts and the operative paragraphs” of the Judgment. Finally, they pointed out that the State had not complied with the operative paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 thereof (supra Having Seen 2).