[…].”391 This would contribute to the effective exercise of the right protected by the verdict being enforced. In the framework of the laws in effect in Chile at the time of the facts, the means available to bring about payment of a judgment against the municipalities were to have the mayor to deliver a mayoral executive order, to issue an arrest warrant against the person holding the office of mayor, to order attachment of assets not designated for municipal services, and the possibility of negotiating agreements for partial payment. All these measures, however, were of only limited effect because of the absence of regulations or mechanisms that, given municipal budget constraints, would oblige the central government to provide the municipalities with sufficient resources to pay the debts. B.2.3.1. Mayoral executive orders 158. According to Article 28 of the Municipal Constitution and Organic Law (hereinafter “MCOL”) in effect at the time of the events of this case, all judgments against a municipality were to be enforced by issuing a mayoral executive order. Before such an order could be issued, however, the municipality needed to have the necessary resources, which should be included in the annual budget or via amendments to the revenue and expenditure schedule that can be produced on a quarterly basis. Article 81 of the MCOL says, in this regard, that the municipal council may approve budgets only if they are fully financed; otherwise, the mayor and the council members will be jointly liable for the resulting deficit.392 This limitation means that mayoral executive orders cannot be issued for debts that exceed the usual amount of municipal revenue,393 and by extension, mayors are therefore unable to comply with admonitions handed down by the courts in the process of enforcing judgments. 159. Thus, the mayor in the process against the municipality of Chañaral, faced with the admonition issued by the Court of First Instance, refrained from compliance, arguing that “the obligation Your Honor has imposed creates a legal impossibility for the municipality of Chañaral, that cannot be resolved under the regulations that govern its work.”394 The municipality of Parral, in turn, argued force majeure to justify its refusal to issue a mayoral executive order. It said: According to the laws governing municipalities, as well as opinions by the Controller General for issuing an order to pay a given amount of money, the funds must be available; to proceed otherwise is a criminal act. […] This municipality has undertaken all possible measures to obtain the resources for paying the debt from the central government, which has not provided the money, and this amounts to a case of force majeure making it impossible to abide by the verdict, which cannot be attributed to the mayor of the commune, but to the lack of municipal resources for this purpose […]395. 391 Cf. Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Ban Ki-moon. UN Doc. A/HRC/25/31, 19 December 2013, para 35, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 140. 392 Cf. Expert statement delivered before a public attestor by Tomás Jordán Díaz, May 28, 2021 (evidence file, folios 19058 and 19059). 393 Of the thirteen procedures included in this case, mayoral executive orders were issued and in fact complied with only in the cases in which consensus-based payment plans were made for partial payment (for example, the mayoral executive orders issued under the payment plan signed with the municipality of Chañaral, evidence file, folios 1027 to 1030). 394 Brief filed by Francisco Donoso Carrasco for the municipality of Chañaral before the Court of First Instance of Chañaral, June 16, 2005, as part of the process Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994 (evidence file, folio 1340). 395 Brief filed by Germain Morales Morales for the municipality of Parral before the Court of First Instance of Parral, April 26, 1996, in the framework of the process Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4.27-1993 (evidence file, folios 17771 and 17773). 55