2

8.
[…]that the State must submit a report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
on the measures taken to comply with this Judgment every six months from the date of
notification of th[e] Judgment.
[…]
9.
[…] to monitor compliance with th[e] Judgment and that the case will be concluded
when the State has fully carried out the provisions set forth in th[e] Judgment.

2.
The State’s reports dated March 22 and September 26, 2002; March 28 and
November 18, 2003; June 4 and December 17, 2004; February 23, March 7 and
August 5, 2005, and May 19, 2006.
3.
The observations of the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the
representatives”) dated June 28 and October 15, 2002; April 25, November 4 and 14,
2003; May 6, July 12 and November 17, 2004; January 18 and September 6, 2005;
June 19 and December 13, 2006, and July 13, 2007.
4.
The observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) dated April 16,
July 18 and November 7, 2002; May 20 and November 17, 2003; March 3, July 12 and
November 16, 2004; April 20, 2005, and February 2 and July 5, 2006.
CONSIDERING:
1.
That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is
to monitor compliance with its decisions.
2.
That the State of Nicaragua has been a State Party to the American Convention
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since
September 25, 1979, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on
February 12, 1991.
3.
That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the
Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be
complied with fully and promptly by the State.
4.
That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States
Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any
case to which they are parties.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding
for all the powers and organs of the State.
5.
That in order to fulfill its mandate of monitoring compliance with the
undertaking made by the States Parties under Article 68(1) of the Convention, the
Court must first know the status of compliance with its decisions. To this end, the
Court must monitor that the State in question has complied with the reparations
ordered by the Court.2
2
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104,
para. 101; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order
of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007, fifth considering
paragraph; and Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order
of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007, fifth considering
paragraph.

Select target paragraph3