5 17. Note 11,273/302 of February 14, 2001, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the Court, reiterated to the State the request referred to in the preceding paragraph. 18. The report of the State of February 15, 2001, and its attachments, in which it referred to the components of the judgments on merits and reparations that were pending compliance. Regarding the payments ordered in the Court’s judgment, it indicated that they had all been paid, but that the setting up of a trust fund in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán, was pending. The State also advised that the name of Mr. Suárez Rosero had been eliminated from the register of criminal records of the National Police, that it had also taken measures in the Register of the National Council on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, and that the Council had officially notified “the different institutions that monitor the financial system,” “which implie[d] that the fine imposed was non-enforceable.” On March 9, 2001, Ecuador forwarded the original report and several attachments. 19. The brief of April 6, 2001, and its attachment, in which Alejandro Ponce Villacís, representative of the victim and his next of kin, referred to compliance with the payment ordered in the judgment on reparations in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán, by setting up a trust fund (supra second and third having seen paragraphs). Mr. Ponce Villacís indicated that “there ha[d] been discussions with regard to setting up [this trust fund],” because the State had indicated that “the cost of administering the trust fund while it was active should be assumed by the beneficiary’ and that ‘the trust fund should be subject to the general taxes included in domestic legislation.” The representative stated that he did not agree with this and, consequently, requested the Court to intervene. 20. The brief of April 20, 3001, and its attachment, in which the Inter-American Commission forwarded its comments on the State’s report of February 15, 2001 (supra eighteenth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it said that those responsible for the violations of the human rights of Mr. Suárez Rosero had not been identified or prosecuted. With regard to the payments made by the State, the Commission indicated that there was a balance pending with regard to the amounts due to Margarita Ramadán. It also stated that the setting up of a trust fund in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán, was pending. With regard to the costs and expenses, it stated that part of the payment was still pending. 21. Note CDH-11,273/324 of May 30, 2001, in which the Secretariat requested the State to present a detailed report and evidence that would allow the Court to assess compliance with its judgments, because examination of the State’s report of February 15 (supra eighteenth having seen paragraph) and the Commission’s comments on that document (supra twentieth having seen paragraph), revealed contradictory information concerning compliance with several elements. 22. The brief of August 29, 2001, and its attachments, in which the State forwarded the requested information (supra twenty-first having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that Mr. Suárez Rosero had not appeared to make a statement before the Judge of Criminal Affairs of Pichincha. It attached a copy of the cheques issued in favor of the victim, his next of kin and his lawyers. Regarding the pending trust fund in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán, the State indicated that the Court should determine who should cover the administrative costs.