6 23. The Order issued by the Court on December 4, 2001, regarding compliance with its judgments, in which it decided: 1. That, as stated in the judgment on reparations in the instant case, the State must set up a trust fund in favor of Micaela Suárez Ramadán, and therefore it – the State – and not the beneficiary of the reparation must cover the costs involved by this trust fund. 2. That, as has already been established by the Court in the judgments on reparations and interpretation of the judgment on reparations, no taxes should be levied on the trust fund in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán. 24. The brief of May 23, 2002 at its attachments, in which the Ecuador advised that “the Financial Department of the Office of the Attorney General […] sent an official communication to the Banks: Pichincha, Produbanco and Internacional” requesting them to forward a proposal regarding setting up the trust fund in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez. However, Ecuador indicated that “the private banks [did not show] any interest in working with” the State and that only the Banco de Pichincha had forwarded a proposal. 25. The brief of July 9, 2002, at its attachment, in which Alejandro Ponce Villacís presented comments on the State’s brief of May 23, 2002 (supra twenty-fourth having seen paragraph). In this respect, he stated that Ecuador “had requested information from financial institutions that [were] not authorized by law to set up trust funds” and that he had contacted the administrator of a fund called the “Pichincha Fund,” a company that recognized his capacity to administer the trust fund. 26. Note CDH-11,273/341 of August 27, 2002, in which the Secretariat requested the State to present a report on compliance with its judgments prior to September 27, 2002. 27. Note CDH-11,273/342 of January 21, 2003, in which the Secretariat, on the instruction of the President, requested the State to forward a report on compliance on the judgment on reparations delivered by the Court by June 16, 2003, at the latest. 28. The brief of January 23, 2003 at its attachment, in which the State requested the Court “to examine the possibility of ordering an alternative way of complying with the judgment on reparations with regard to the minor, Suárez Ramadán, that [did] not entail such a high cost for the Treasury.” 29. The brief of February 10, 2003, in which Alejandro Ponce Villacís presented his comments on the State’s brief of January 23, 2003 (supra twenty-eighth having seen paragraph). In this respect, “he express[ed] his concern with regard to the State’s attitude, owing both to the unjustified delay in setting up the trust fund and to the failure to investigate and punish those responsible.” 30. The brief of February 14, 2003, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s brief of January 23, 2003 (supra twenty-eighth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it requested the Court “to urge the State to conclude the pending procedures with regard to setting up the trust fund in the name of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán” and to request the State to provide “detailed information on the measures adopted to ensure that those responsible for the violations established [were] identified, prosecuted and punished.”