7 “the [corresponding]encumbrances and attachments were applied on 06/12/1996 y 24/11/1997”, as per the judicial decision of March 17, 2006, and the note by the Federal Administrator of the AFIP of February 13, 2008, whereby “in any of these assumptions, the measures have expired.” In this regard, the State indicated that “it has fully complied with the operative paragraph under consideration” and requested for the Court to declare the closing of the procedure for monitoring compliance with operative paragraph four. 20. That in its observations of March 17, and May 28, 2009, the representative indicated that the circumstance presented by the State in the report of March 14, 2008 was “indescribable”, given that “after 5 (five) years and 4 (four) months after the ruling of the [J]udgment on the referred case, [it reported] that the requirement both of the [Court], the Honorable Commission, and the victim had been complied with since 20012002 due to the expiration of the measure by itself.” In this regard, the representative highlighted the “lack of fairness in the duration of the proceeding, attributable to the behavior of the competent authorities [of over 5 years…] to report that the measures had expired since 2001-2002, meaning prior to the ruling of the [J]udgment.” However, the representative did not refer specifically to the alleged compliance by the State, even though the Court requested the submission of complementary information regarding the current status of each of the reparations pending fulfillment (supra Having Seen 7). 21. That in its observations of May 21, 2008, the Commission took cognizance of the information presented by the State, according to which the precautionary measures against Mr. Cantos had expired in conformity with Article 207 of the Code of Civil Proceedings of Argentina. 22. That the Court considered the information provided by the Court, according to which, in conformity with Article 207 of the National Code of Civil and Commercial Proceedings [of Argentina], the precautionary measures ruled against Mr. Cantos had expired since 2001 and 2002, respectively. Consequently, these measures are currently not in effect, according to the judicial decision of March 17, 2006, and the note of the Federal administrator of the AFIP of February 13, 2008. Taking into consideration the evidence submitted by the State, as well as the Commission’s observations, this Court considers that the State has complied with the obligation contained in operative paragraph four of the Judgment. * * * 23. That this Court values the full compliance with operative paragraphs one and four of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs delivered by the Court on November 28, 2002, as well as partial compliance with operative paragraph three of the aforementioned Judgment, regarding the payment of fees and expenses for Experts, which constitutes an advance by the State in the execution and implementation of the Court’s judgments. * * * 24. That the representative requested the Court to determine and apply some type of sanction to the State, as it considers “its behavior inappropriate with regards to the