8 e) Based on the above, “the Commission considers that the provisions of operative paragraph number eleven of the Judgment of the Court of June 7, 2003, should be complied with immediately by means of the action that the Court may deem convenient in order to restore the public order. […] In this context [...] it would be convenient to set a peremptory term for the State to fully comply with its obligations and compensate the consequences derived from the failure to cease conduct in violation of the victim’s next of kin’s rights. Considering that the Court has already arrived at a decision in this respect and has evidenced that the elapsed time is no longer reasonable, the failure by the State to comply with its obligations compromises its liability and has international consequences.” CONSIDERING: 1. That Honduras has been a State Party to the Convention since September 8, 1977 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention prescribes that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons”, the Court may, in the cases under its jurisdiction, adopt the provisional measures it deems convenient. 3. That, under the provisions of Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or alleged victims, their next of kin, or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures directly to the Court. […] 4. That the representatives stated that the main purpose of the request for provisional measures is to “avoid further violations” of the right to humane treatment of the victim's next of kin for the failure by the State to deliver his mortal remains to them. Furthermore, the representatives acknowledged that the state obligation to deliver the mortal remains is provided for in the Judgment of preliminary objections, merits and reparations delivered by the Court on June 7, 2003 in the instant case, and stated that the requested measures “consist in the immediate delivery of the mortal remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez” to his next of kin, because the failure to do so “is causing additional violations of the next of kin’s rights.” In turn, the InterAmerican Commission considered that the failure to deliver the mortal remains of the victim to his next of kin amounts to a contempt by the State of the Court’s orders under the above mentioned Judgment and that “the provisions of operative paragraph number eleven of [said] Judgment […] should be complied with immediately by means of the action that the Court may deem convenient in order to restore the public order.” Lastly, the State failed to deliver an opinion on the request for provisional measures.