5 reparations. The Commission pointed out that according to the information it had received from the victim’s next of kin, “the difference in the amount of compensation paid for pecuniary damages is due to a typographical error, which would mean that [operative paragraph eight] point (c) has been fully complied with” (supra Having Seen 3(d). 6. The June 18, 2004 brief in which the representatives of the victim and his next of kin sent the comments requested by the Secretariat in its note of May 17, 2004 (supra Having Seen 3) concerning operative paragraph nine of the Judgment on reparations. The representatives stated that “on May 19, 2004 [an] attorney from CEJIL delivered to the Deputy Minister of Justice the documents verifying the organization’s legal personality [...] and the power of attorney that the Executive Director [...] had given her authorizing her to receive the payment ordered by the Court [...]. Subsequently, by communication MP-VMJ No. 545/04 dated May 24, 2004, Bolivia informed CEJIL […] that the [aforementioned attorney’s] credentials were not sufficient to discharge the obligation in question until such time as the pertinent legal formalities are followed.” The representatives contend that the obligation can be discharged by making out a check in the institution’s name, “without all the formalities required by the Bolivian State.” The representatives also mentioned compliance with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on reparations, indicating that in their view the “State had complied with that financial obligation”, since “a typing error in the State’s report had incorrectly represented the amount actually paid” (supra Having Seen 3(d)). 7. The June 23, 2004 note in which the Secretariat gave the State until July 18, 2004, to present its comments on the briefs presented by the Commission and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (supra Having Seen 5 and 6). 8. The July 23, 2004 brief in which Bolivia requested “an extension on the deadline for presentation of the report” on compliance with the Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen 3 and 7). 9. The July 27, 2004 note where, following instructions received from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President’), the Secretariat informed the State that it had been granted the extension it had requested, making the new deadline August 23, 2004. 10. The August 23, 2004 brief and its attachments, whereby Bolivia submitted the report on compliance with the Judgment on reparations and its comments on the briefs submitted by the Commission and the representatives (supra Having Seen 5 and 6), requested in the Secretariat’s notes of May 17, 2004 and June 23, 2004 (supra Having Seen 3, 7, 8 and 9). Summarizing, the State reported that: a) As to the obligation to use every means available to locate the victim’s mortal remains and deliver them to his next of kin, Supreme Decree No. 27089, of June 18, 2003, created the Inter-Institutional Council to Solve Forced Disappearances; also measures have been ordered “through the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic for the Institute of Forensic Investigation to take steps to locate the remains of Mr. Trujillo Oroza”; b) concerning compliance with the order to make forced disappearance a crime under Bolivia’s legal system, the Executive Branch of Government has made “overtures to Congress to ask that when dealing with the 2004-2005