ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 CASE OF GARIBALDI v. BRAZIL MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT HAVING SEEN: 1. The judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the judgment”), delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) on September 23, 2009, as well as the order of the Court of February 22, 2011, in which it decided to keep the proceedings on monitoring compliance open with regard to the following aspects: a) Conduct the investigation effectively and within a reasonable time, together with any proceedings that may be opened as a result of the investigation, in order to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish the authors of Mr. Garibaldi’s death. In the same way, the State must investigate and, as appropriate, punish the possible offenses committed in the exercise of their functions by the public officials in charge of the investigation, as established in the judgment (seventh operative paragraph of the judgment); b) Pay Iracema Garibaldi, Darsônia Garibaldi, Vanderlei Garibaldi, Fernando Garibaldi, Itamar Garibaldi, Itacir Garibaldi and Alexandre Garibaldi the amounts established in paragraphs 187 and 193 of the judgment for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage […] as specified in paragraphs 200 to 203 of the judgment (eighth operative paragraph of the judgment), and c) Pay Iracema Garibaldi the amount established in paragraph 199 of the judgment for reimbursement of costs and expenses […] as specified in paragraphs 200 to 203 of the judgment (ninth operative paragraph of the judgment). 2. The briefs of June 21 and November 8, 2011, and their attachments, in which the Federative Republic of Brazil (hereinafter also “the State” or “Brazil”) forwarded information in relation to monitoring compliance with the judgment handed down by the Court in this case. 3. The briefs of August 8, 2011, and January 4, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations on the reports on compliance with the judgment presented by the State. 4. The briefs of August 17, 2011, and January 18, 2012, in which the representatives of the victims (hereinafter also “the representatives”) forwarded their observations on the information presented by the State. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the Court’s jurisdictional functions is to monitor compliance with its decisions.