replied to the admonition, arguing that it had “taken all measures to obtain the resources from the central authorities to pay the amount owed, but they have not provided it, and therefore, reasons of force majeure make it impossible to execute the judgment in question.”209 93. The court issued orders for the submission of helpful evidence on May 6, 1996, to the municipal treasury of Parral for a report on its funds; to the Office of the Comptroller General, for a report on the mayor’s inability to issue a payment order; and to the Ministry of the Interior to respond to the municipality’s communiqué requesting funds to pay the debt.210 The case file contains no response to these measures. 94. The plaintiffs petitioned the court on December 9, 1994, to order attachment of the assets of the municipality of Parral.211 The Court of First Instance of Parral, on December 14, 1994, denied the request for attachment, holding that the property that would have been attached pertained to the city’s municipal theater, and as such, was intended for the operation of municipal services and therefore was not eligible for attachment.212 The plaintiffs appealed this order.213 The Talca Court of Appeals delivered an order on October 29, 1997, that the court of Parral could not unilaterally define whether the asset could be attached or not, and therefore overturned its decision.214 The plaintiffs again requested an order of attachment of the assets of the municipality of Parral on January 3, 1997.215 An automobile belonging to the municipality was seized on January 7, 1997.216 The plaintiffs subsequently requested a new attachment of other municipal assets on February 12, 1997,217 and the request was granted by court order on the same date.218 Three vehicles belonging to the municipality of Parral were seized on February 24, 1997.219 The municipality petitioned the court on March 4, 1997, to exclude its vehicles from the attachment, as they were used exclusively for the purposes of the municipality and therefore were not eligible for attachment.220 The court granted the municipality’s request in an order on May 14, 1997. 221 An item of real estate belonging to the municipality was seized on December 10, 1997.222 209 Brief filed by Germain Morales Morales on behalf of the municipality of Parral before the Court of First Instance of Parral, April 29, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17160). 210 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, May 6, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17163). 211 Cf. Brief filed by Ewaldo Schulz Ibáñez on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Parral, December 9, 1994 (evidence file, folios 17164 and 17165). 212 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, December 14, 1996 (evidence file, folio 17166). 213 Cf. Motion of appeal lodged by Ewaldo Schulz Ibáñez on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Talca Court of Appeals, December 21, 1996 (evidence file, folios 17167 to 17169). 214 Cf. Order by the Talca Court of Appeals, October 29, 1997 (evidence file, folios 17170 to 17172). 215 Cf. Brief filed by Teodoro Durán Palma on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Parral, January 3, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17173). 216 Cf. Record of seizure, January 7, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17175). 217 Cf. Brief filed by Ewaldo Schulz Ibáñez on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Parral, February 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17180). 218 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, February 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17181). 219 Cf. Record of seizure, February 24, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17185). 220 Cf. Brief filed by Germain Morales Morales on behalf of the municipality of Parral before the Court of First Instance of Parral , March 4, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17186 and 17187). 221 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, May 14, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17188). 222 Cf. Record of seizure, December 10, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17195). 33