4 reparations. In this respect, he indicated that the State had not complied with the judgments of the Court since July 1999. 10. The brief of January 14, 2000, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its comments on the State’s report of November 12, 1999 (supra eighth having seen paragraph). In this, it indicated that the State had merely referred to the obligation to order an investigation, but the Criminal Court of Pichincha had not adopted any measures. The Commission also indicated that it had been unable to determine whether, in effect, the State had eliminated the name of Mr. Suárez Rosero from the Register of Criminal Records and from the Register kept by the National Council on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. 11. Note CDH-11,273/287 of April 7, 2000, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, requested the State to present a report before May 15, 2000, with a detailed account of the measures taken to comply with the provisions of the judgment on reparations that were pending compliance, and also the measures of reparations ordered in the judgment on merits that were also pending compliance. 12. The brief of May 10, 2000, and its attachments, in which the State presented the report requested by the Court (supra eleventh having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that on January 6, 2000, it had made a partial payment to Mr. Suárez Rosero and that, in the next few days, it would deliver the remaining amount in his favor. Regarding the investigation, the State advised that the “Fifth Criminal Judge of Pichincha ha[d] issued a court order to investigate the illegal detention of Rafael Suárez Rosero.” 13. The brief of July 11, 2000, and its attachments, with which Alejandro Ponce Villacís forwarded a copy of the communication of June 30, 2000, that he had sent to Ramón Jiménez Carbo, Attorney General (Procurador General) of the State of Ecuador. He also submitted a copy of official letter No. SPYC-AD-2000 from “Ing. Com. Jorge Morán Centeno,” Under-Secretary General of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, to Claudio Mueckay Arcos, Ombudsman, indicating that Mr. Ponce Villacís had filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, because the State had only complied partially with the measures of reparation decided by the Court. 14. Note CDH-11,273/297 of August 21, 2000, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the whole Court, requested the State to forward an updated report on compliance before September 29, 2000, if there was any information subsequent to that sent in the brief of May 10, 2000 (supra twelfth having seen paragraph). 15. Note CDH-11,273/301 of November 10, 2000, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, reiterated to the State the request to present the report on compliance that the Court had asked for as soon as possible (supra fourteenth having seen paragraph). 16. Note CDH-11,273/285 of November 21, 2000, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the whole Court, informed the State that, owing to its failure “to present the information requested by the Court on repeated occasions,” it should present a report on the provisions of the judgment on reparations that were pending compliance, and also on the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment on merits that were also pending compliance by January 29, 2001.