3 victim and his next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”), all agreed that the State had in fact complied with some measures of reparation. The Court therefore asked the State to present a new report, by July 18, 2004 at the latest, on the reparations still pending compliance. It also asked the State to inform the Court whether it had complied with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on reparations, and to present any comment it might have on what aspects it believed had been fully carried out. The Court also called upon the Commission to submit any comments it might have concerning compliance with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on reparations; it asked the representatives to comment on compliance with operative paragraph nine of that Judgment, by June 18, 2004 at the latest, so that the Court might determine precisely which reparations the State had complied with in full. In this note the Secretariat points out that based on the information that the State presented on May 5, 2003, June 11, 2003, July 8, 2003, September 3, 2003 and September 23, 2003, concerning compliance with the Judgment on reparations, and taking into account the written comments presented by the Commission on November 5, 2003 and by the representatives on December 8, 2003, and the brief filed by Bolivia on March 10, 2004, the Court had the following observations regarding compliance with the measures of reparation: a) in their comments, both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives stated that they believed that the State had complied with the following measures: publication of the January 26, 2000 Judgment on merits, in Bolivia’s Official Gazette; the payments ordered for the victim’s mother and two siblings for non pecuniary damages, and the payment ordered to reimburse Mrs. Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, the victim’s mother, for costs and expenses. The State presented a copy of Bolivia’s Official Gazette, Special Edition No. 055 of August 8, 2003, wherein the complete texts of the Court’s judgments on merits and reparations were published. Bolivia reported that on September 3, 2003, a public ceremony was held to hand over the compensation checks. In attendance was the President of the Republic, the Vice President, the Minister of the Office of the Presidency and the Deputy Minister of Justice. The State provided copies of the notarized statements of payment, as well as a copy of the checks handed over, which show that the State made the payments; b) the following reparations were still pending: the State’s obligation to use every means necessary to locate the victim’s mortal remains and deliver them to his next of kin, so that they might give them a proper burial; criminalization of forced disappearance in Bolivia’s domestic legal system; investigation, identification and punishment of those responsible for the wrongful acts to which this case refers; the duty to adopt, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, those measures of protection to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights to life, to personal liberty and to humane treatment and protection of judicial guarantees, in order to avoid a recurrence of the human rights violations that occurred in this case; to officially name some educational institution in the city of Santa Cruz after José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, in a public ceremony with the victim’s next of kin in attendance; payment of the costs and expenses ordered for CEJIL. Bolivia was therefore asked to report on compliance with these measures;