8 investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for the human rights violations declared by the Court.” Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to urge the State “to complete the procedures needed to set up the trust fund in the name of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán” and to request the State to provide “detailed information on the measures adopted in order to ensure that those responsible for the violations established [were] identified, prosecuted and punished.” 34. The brief of October 28, 2003, in which the State requested an extension for presenting the requested report (supra thirty-second having seen paragraph). The Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, granted the requested extension until November 5, 2003. 35. Note CDH-11,273/374 of November 18, 2003, in which the Secretariat requested the State to forward the requested information (supra thirty-second and thirty-fourth having seen paragraph) as soon as possible, because the time limit had expired and the State’s information had not been received. 36. Note CDH-11,273/377 of November 18, 2003, in which the Secretariat requested the representative of the victim and his next of kin to forward the requested information (supra thirty-second having seen paragraph) as soon as possible, because the time limit had expired and the representative’s information had not been received. 37. The brief of November 25, 2003, in which the representative of the victim and his next of kin responded to the Court’s request (supra thirty-second and thirty-fifth having seen paragraph). In this respect, the representative indicated that “the State ha[d] not complied with its obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for the human rights violations,” because: a) Ecuador had not taken “civil, administrative or criminal measures,” even though it could have done so; b) “the criminal proceeding filed against certain authors, accomplices and accessories ha[d] not advanced at all, even though [...] it should have advanced de oficio merely due to the normal activities of the Office of the Public Prosecutor (Ministerio Fiscal) and c) the National Police[,], far from punishing those responsible administratively[,] some of them continue[d] as active members of the National Police.” According to the representative, “[t]his conduct by the State reveal[ed] the lack of political will [...] to comply fully with the judgments delivered by the Honorable Court,” and “to avoid human rights violations such as those that had occurred [in this case] being repeated” and, therefore, “it [could] be said that the Ecuadorian State was attempting to ensure the impunity of those responsible.” Lastly, as regards the setting up of the trust fund in favor of Micaela Suárez Ramadán, the representative indicated that “the State ha[d] not complied with the rulings of the Honorable Court and ha[d] simply abstained from complying with its obligations”; and it is this attitude of the State that causes Mr. Suárez Rosero concern. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State has been a Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984.