3 9. The communication of August 23, September 7 and October 5, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims, the Illustrious State and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, referred to the representatives’ request made to the Tribunal for an additional payment by the State so that the three child victims could purchase a home. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Columbia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention") since July 31, 1973 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings2. 4. In virtue of the definitive and non-appealable nature of the Court's Judgments, according to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with such Judgments. 5. Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court3 states that: 1. Supervision of judgments and other court decisions will be made through the presentation of State reports and the corresponding observations on the reports by the victims or their representatives. The Commission must submit observations on the State report and on the observations of victims or their representatives. 2. The Court may request facts relevant to the case, which make it possible to assess compliance, from additional information sources. To the same effect they may also request expert appraisals and reports deemed necessary. 3. When appropriate the Court may convene the State and the representatives of the victims to a hearing to monitor compliance with its decisions, and it will hear the views of the Commission. 4. Once the Tribunal has the relevant information, it will determine the state of compliance with the resolutions and issue any orders it deems appropriate. 5. These provisions also apply to cases not filed by the Commission. 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have a duty to comply with the obligations provided for by the Court. This includes the duty of the State to report on measures taken to comply with the Court's Orders. Timely fulfillment of the State's obligation to advise the Court how it is complying with each of the points it ordered is essential in order to assess the state of compliance with the Judgment4. 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C. No. 104, para. 131; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering Clause three, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 20, 2009, Considering Clause three. 3 4 Rules of Procedure of the Court passed at its LXXXV Regular Session, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause five; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3,