160. In the three cases in Cauquenes, the municipality decided to issue mayoral executive orders in compliance with the admonitions delivered by the court. The text of the orders, however, expressly stated that the municipality “lacks the funds necessary to pay such a large amount of money,”396 which rendered ineffective this measure of compliance. The municipality of Vallenar, in the case against it, issued executive order No. 2058, undertaking to allocate resources to pay the judgment in the subsequent budgetary cycle, and stated, “if the resources were to prove insufficient to pay the entire debt, the unpaid balance will be included in subsequent budgets.”397 As the plaintiffs in the case argued, however, the mayor did not propose the funds for debt payment in the budgets for 2001 and 2002, and therefore the executive order was declared null and void.398 Lacking any other avenues for guaranteeing compliance, the plaintiffs decided to request an arrest warrant against the mayor. B.2.3.2. The arrest warrant 161. In reality, the only enforcement measure on the Chilean lawbooks to ensure compliance with judgments against municipalities is the arrest warrant against mayors, provided in Article 32 of the MCOL (supra para. 50). This measure was ordered in the processes against the Municipalities of Chañaral and Vallenar.399 During the time the proceedings were taking place, however, the MCOL was amended under 2002 Law No. 19,845, limiting the use of the measure and stating that it “shall apply only to the mayor during whose term of office the debt giving rise to the trial was contracted.” 162. The Court sees the arrest warrant as an imperfect measure for ensuring payment of a debt, as it materially bars procurement of the funds, especially when it can be applied only to debts contracted during the term of office of the mayor targeted by the warrant. Indeed, the arrest warrants ordered in the processes included in this judgment brought no progress in the proceedings or in payment of the debts. B.2.3.3. Attachment of municipal assets 163. The plaintiffs had the possible option of requesting attachment of municipal assets in the enforcement proceedings. This possibility was limited, however, by the principle stating that municipal assets designated for operating municipal services were exempt from attachment, as established in Article 28 (current 3(2)) of the MCOL. Accordingly, in the framework of the process of Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993, when the plaintiffs requested that municipal assets be attached, their petition was denied by the court with the argument that “municipal assets are exempt from attachment.”400 Similarly, in the process Bayer 396 Mayoral Executive Orders No. 310, 311 and 312 issued by the municipality of Cauquenes, June 9, 2006, in the framework of the processes Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1996; Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993 and Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993 (evidence file, folios 14978, 15061 and 14897). 397 Mayoral Executive Order No. 2058/2000 issued by the municipality of Vallenar, August 21, 2000 (evidence file, folio 12207). 398 Cf. Order by the Copiapó Court of Appeals, July 16, 2002, in the framework of the process Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993 (evidence file, folio 12997). 399 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Chañaral, November 8, 2004, in the framework of the process Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994 (evidence file, folio 1316) and the order of the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, December 2, 2002, in the framework of the process Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993 (evidence file, folio 13195). 400 Order by the Chanco Court of Appeals, January 18, 1995, in the framework of the process Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993 (evidence file, folio 15920). 56