8 and the Court values the advance this represents in the process for compliance with this Judgment. 32. That with regards to the second state obligation, [the State of] Ecuador manifested that “it was not necessary to modify the Ecuadorean Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act given that the stipulations regarding costs for warehousing, deposit, and management of assets seized, withheld or confiscated, were exclusively regulatory.” According to the State, the modification to the Rules on the application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act delivered in Executive Decree No. 985, would suffice. The aforementioned Decree establishes in Article 1 that: Below Article 80 [Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act] add the following: 80(1)- If the accused owner of the assets withheld, seized or expropriated is temporarily or definitively dismissed or absolved, the assets will be returned by CONSEP when the competent authority thus decides. In this case, the owner of the assets will not be forced to pay costs relating to warehousing, deposit, custodian fees or remunerations, depositaries-administrators, supervisors, in which CONSEP incurred while managing, depositing or guarding the assets. 14 33. Additionally, the State informed that it “has urged the National Council on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [Consejo Nacional de Sustancias Estupefacientes y Psicotrópicas or CONSEP] to reform their internal regulations, as indicated by the Court and by the Executive Decree.” 34. That the representatives indicated that the compliance with this obligation is incomplete, given that “the exhortation to the CONSEP is insufficient,” and that the obligation may be considered fulfilled only “when the CONSEP has reformed its internal regulations and there is no regulatory contradiction between the internal legislation of the State and that ordained by the […] Court.” Subsequently, they added that “they [have] no proof that the rights of deposit will no longer be charged, under the terms demanded by the Judgment.” 35. That the Commission assessed the modification performed through Executive Decree No. 985, and indicated that “it awaits information regarding the pending modifications to the internal regulations of the [CONSEP].” 36. That in view of the matters presented in the above paragraphs, the Court reiterates its conformity with the constitutional amendment carried out and declares that the State has fully complied with the obligation to adapt to the American Convention its internal regulations pertaining to the writ of habeas corpus. It also declares that the State has partially complied with the obligation to adapt its internal regulations in relation to the ceasing of charges for deposit and handling of the assets seized from individuals who have not been convicted by a final judgment. The Court awaits information from the State on the internal reforms conducted by CONSEP on this matter. * * * 37. That with regards to the duty to adopt forthwith all legislative, administrative or other measures necessary to eliminate de oficio all of the criminal records of the persons who are definitively acquitted or dismissed (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment), the State informed that “the Attorney General’s Office has sent an official letter to public institutions involved whereby it requests the creation of an integrated information system and encourages the pertinent regulatory reforms to have the ‘cleaning’ of certain documents 14 Executive Decree No. 985 issued by the Constitutional President of the Republic of Ecuador on March 27, 2008 (file on monitoring of compliance, Volume I, folio 141).