6.
The brief of April 4, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
presented the said observations (supra having seen paragraph 5).
7.
The brief of June 20, 2011, in which the State forwarded a report in response to the
President’s request (supra having seen paragraph 5).
8.
The brief of July 14, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
forwarded its observations on the information presented by the State.
9.
The Secretariat’s note of July 15, 2011, in which, on the instructions of the President
of the Court, it asked the representatives to forward any observations they deemed
pertinent on the State’s last report, the time frame for this having expired on July 6, 2011.
10.
The communication of July 22, 2011, and its attachments, in which
representatives presented the required observations (supra having seen paragraph 9).

the

11.
The Secretariat’s note of July 29, 2011, in which, on the instructions of the President
of the Court, it asked the State to provide an updated report on compliance with the
judgments, and the pertinent supporting documentation.
12.
The brief of August 30, 2011, in which the State forwarded information in relation to
the President’s request (supra having seen paragraph 11).
13.
The briefs of October 7 and 18, 2011, in which the representatives and the
Commission, respectively, forwarded their observations on the last report presented by the
State. The representatives asked the Court to convene a hearing to “determine mechanisms
for implementing compliance with the obligations specified in the judgments and orders of
the Court.”
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor
compliance with its decisions.
2.
Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and
accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985.
3.
Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” To this end, the States must ensure implementation of the Court’s decisions in
its judgments at the national level.1
4.
The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding
jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation
includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the actions taken to comply with the Court’s
orders in its decisions. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of

1

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No.
104, para. 131, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2012, third considering paragraph.

2

Select target paragraph3