5 3. That the representatives of the victim and her next of kin, and also the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, must submit their comments on the report of the State mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within two months of receiving it. […] 15. The note of the State of April 23, 2003, in which it requested a 60-day extension of the period granted by the Court to present a report on the status of compliance with judgment in this case. The note of the Secretariat of May 8, 2003, informing the State that an extension had been granted until June 30, 2003. 16. The note of the State of June 24, 2003, received on August 4, 2003, to which it attached some “copies of the pertinent procedural documents from the proceeding filed on the disappearance and death of Professor Benavides”. 17. The note of the Secretariat of August 19, 2003, requesting the State to forward as soon as possible, a report with a detailed account of the measures taken and their results relating to the status of compliance with the provisions of the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment of June 19, 1998, (supra first having seen paragraph). 18. The Order of the Inter-American Court of September 9, 2003, which established in its sixth and seventh considering paragraphs: 6. That the Court has established in its constant case law that it is inadmissible to invoke any provisions of internal law, which include declaring an action statute-barred, with the intention of preventing compliance with the decisions of the Court in relating to the investigation and punishment of those responsible for grave human rights violations,1 owing to the treaty obligations assumed by States. Otherwise, the effet util of the provisions of the American Convention in the domestic law of the States Parties would be denied, and the international proceeding would be deprived of its basic purpose, since, instead of promoting justice, it would entail the impunity of those responsible for the violation. 7. That, from what the State has declared regarding the statute-barred nature of the criminal proceeding against those allegedly responsible for the human rights violations against Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, this Court considers that the State cannot invoke the statute of limitations period established in its domestic law in order not to comply with its obligation under the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment of June 19, 1998. And decided: 1. That the State had the obligation to take all necessary measures to comply fully and promptly with the judgment of June 19, 1998, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Benavides Cevallos case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. That the State must present to the Court, by October 18, 2003, at the latest, a detailed report on the measures taken, following the delivery of the Court’s judgment, to comply with the provisions of its fourth operative paragraph. 1 Cfr. Bulacio case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 116; Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations (Art. 63.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92., para. 106; Barrios Altos case. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41.