Procedure 18, the State must appear before the Court when convened to a hearing to monitor compliance with its decisions, since the failure to appear constitutes a failure to comply with its duty to inform the Court about the implementation of the Judgment and an insult to one of the most effective and democratically approved mechanisms developed in the InterAmerican system. 15. In this case, the last communication received by the Court from Nicaragua in the proceedings of monitoring compliance with the Judgment dates back to three years ago. Subsequently, the process has been characterized by the absence of the State, despite the constant requests made and the private hearing held at the seat of the Court (supra Having Seen clause 6). The Court considers that the evident failure of the State of Nicaragua to comply with its obligation to inform regarding measures of reparation pending fulfillment constitutes an open disregard of the duties derived from the Judgment handed down by the Court and of the treaty obligations of the State Party, which precludes the reparation of the violations to the human rights established in the Judgment and strips the Convention of its effectiveness in this specific case. 16. The Court considers it necessary to recall and underline, as it has done in prior occasions 19, that prompt observance of the obligation of the State to advise the Court as to how it is implementing each aspect ordered by the Court is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. Moreover, this obligation is not fulfilled with the mere formal presentation of a document to the Court, but is twofold in nature and, for its effective compliance, requires the formal presentation of a document within the established time frame, and that it presents specific, true, recent and detailed information on the aspects to which this obligation relates. 20 17. Without the appropriate information from the State, this Court is unable to exercise its function of monitoring the execution of the judgments it delivers. In this regard, the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, in order to enable it to meet in full its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, it is necessary that the States Parties provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court. 21 18. Consequently, Nicaragua must adopt all the measures necessary to effectively comply with the decisions of the Court in the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause 1). This 18 Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court noted that, “[w]hen it deems it appropriate, the Tribunal may convene the State and the victims’ representatives to a hearing in order to monitor compliance with its decisions; the Court shall hear the opinion of the Commission at that hearing.” 19 In this regard, by way of the notes of the Secretariat of June 29, 2012, and July 3, 2013, pursuant to the instructions of the Plenary of the Court, the State was reminded that “[t]he timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of its compliance with each of the measures ordered by the Court is fundamental in order to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.” In the abovementioned note of July 3, 2013, the State was also informed that “its failure to appear in the private hearing on Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment that was carried out on May 28, 2013, in the headquarters of the Court, constitutes noncompliance with its obligation to inform the Court on its compliance with the Judgment,” and that, “pursuant to that provided in Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the State must appear before the Court when summoned to a hearing on Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment”. 20 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause 7, and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering clause 20. 21 Cf. General Assembly of the OAS, “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights,” Resolution AG/RES. 2759 (XLII-O/12), approved by the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2012, Operative Paragraph 5. 8