3 5. That for the sake of fulfilling its mandate to monitor compliance with the commitments made by States Parties according to Article 68(1) of the Convention, the Court must learn the degree to which its decisions are observed. Therefore, the Tribunal must monitor to assure that the States comply with the reparations ordered.1 6. That States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the duty, on behalf of the State, to inform the Court of measures adopted in order to comply with what the Tribunal has ordered in its decisions. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to indicate to the Tribunal how it is complying with each of the points ordered is fundamental for evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment in its entirety. 7. That in the Order issued by the Tribunal on November 28, 2005, in monitoring the full compliance with the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs issued in this case, the Court found the obligation related to the reimbursement of costs and expenses fulfilled. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that the remaining measures of reparation that had been ordered were still pending compliance and found it necessary to keep open the procedure for the monitoring of compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered that the State adopt all the measures necessary to allow prompt and effective observance of the outstanding points and requested the presentation of a report indicating which measures were adopted in order to comply with operative paragraphs six, seven and eight of the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). 8. That this Presidency observes that on several occasions during the procedure of monitoring compliance, the State has expressed its intention to comply with the Judgment and submitted information on efforts made to that effect, such as the establishment of a high-level commission in charge of moving the execution of the Judgment forward; the making of certain payments; the offer to make new payments; and the processing of a number of public-sector posts for the reinscription of the victims on the public payroll, among other measures. 9. That the Inter-American Commission, for its part, stressed the lack of specific information on the various aspects of the measures ordered in the Judgment, such as the criteria used to determine the amount of damages to be paid, as well as the amounts of new payment proposals, and on the specific actions and achieved advances in the compliance of the Judgment. 10. That the victims and their representatives presented, on several occasions, comments on the information provided by the State; they requested explanations of the criteria used to estimate reparations payments; they expressed their disagreement regarding the payments made; they presented information on the status of compliance with the different reparations measures and requested a public hearing to monitor the compliance with the Judgment. 1 Cfr. ICHR. Baena Ricard et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paragraph 101.