2 emergency; and, for prosecutors and judges, permanent educational programs on international standards related to judicial protection of human rights (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment); and, e) to pay directly to the Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU) [Ecumenical Human Rights Commission] the amounts set in paragraph 161 of the Judgment as compensation for legal costs and expenses (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment). 2. That the State has complied in part with its obligation to pay directly to the family members of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña the amounts set as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages (operative paragraph of the Judgment eleven), as set forth in considering clauses numbers 67 to 70. 3. That, in accordance with the terms of considering paragraphs 12 to 16 and 69 to 70, the procedure to monitor compliance with the outstanding points in the instant case shall remain open, to wit: a) to immediately carry out the necessary actions, and use all available means, to expedite the investigation and proceedings with ordinary criminal jurisdiction to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña and Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña, as well as fulfilling the next of kin of the victims right to the truth and ensuring that they have full access and capacity to act in all stages and instances of the said investigations and proceedings, pursuant to the domestic laws and provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights (operative paragraph six of the Judgment), and b) to directly pay the family members of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña the interest accrued on the overdue payments as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment). 3. The briefs of July 20, August 13 and 24, and September 10, 2010, through which the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) issued information about compliance with the outstanding points in the present case. 4. The briefs of August 20 and October 14, 2010, through which the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations on the State reports. 5. The communication of October 19, 2010, through which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations on the State’s reports. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent jurisdictional power of the Court. 2. Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court’s judgment in any case to