8 treatment of a citizen,” Mr. Cantos in this case, and for some type of compensation measure to be determined for the victim, given the “circumstances lived as of the ruling of the [J]udgment.” 25. That given the allegations of the representative, and based on the Court’s case law, at this stage of monitoring compliance, the Court is empowered to give instructions at the request of a party or motu propio relating to compliance with or implementation of the measures of reparation ordered in its Judgment of November 28, 2002, for effective compliance with the provisions of that ruling. Nevertheless, this does not imply that it can order measures of reparation different from those it already ordered, so as to modify the Judgment.5 Consequently, the Court rejects the representative’s request in the instant case. * * * 26. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1), once it receives information on the operative paragraphs of the reparations pending compliance. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and 30(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That in conformity with Considering clauses 10 and 22 of this Order, the State has complied with the following obligations: a) refrain from charging Mr. José María Cantos the filing fee and late charge (operative paragraph one of the Judgment); b) lift the attachments, general property encumbrances and other measures ordered against the assets and commercial activities of Mr. José María Cantos to guarantee payment of the court filing fee and the regulated professional fees (operative paragraph four of the Judgment). 5 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 7, 2008, Considering 46.