undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the States must ensure that the provisions of the Court’s judgments are implemented at the domestic level.1 3. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures taken to comply with the decisions of the Court in its judgments. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each aspect ordered by the Court is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.2 4. The time frame for the presentation of the first report on compliance with the judgment expires on June 24, 2012. However, on October 6, 2011, the State presented a report in which it indicated, in general, that on August 15, 2011, the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship had signed a “Compliance Agreement” with Mercedes Vera Valdes, mother of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and, in turn, a victim in the instant case, and with her representative. The agreement included a timetable for complying with the measures of reparation ordered by the Court. The State forwarded a copy of this document. Since the Court has already received the observations on this report from the representative and the Inter-American Commission, and since progress in compliance with most of the measures of reparation ordered has been verified, the Court finds it pertinent to issue this order. A. Obligation to adopt, within a reasonable time, the necessary measures for the mother of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera to know what happened to her son (second operative paragraph of the judgment) 5. The State advised that in the Compliance Agreement, it “undertook to prepare an official report on the detention conditions of Mr. Vera Vera and the actions taken by State agents with regard to his health.” This report would be submitted to Mrs. Vera Valdez for her approval, and presented in December 2011. 6. The representative also mentioned the commitments deriving from the Compliance Agreement in relation to this obligation. However, he indicated that, as of November 2011, he was still waiting for these commitments to be met. 7. The Inter-American Commission stated that it assessed “positively the signature of the agreement between the parties, [and awaited] the State's presentation of a copy of the report” to be submitted in December 2011. The Commission indicated that it would formulate specific observations on whether the said report “meets the expectations of the next of kin of the victim for the truth, in the terms ordered” by the Court. 8. The Court emphasizes that shortly after the judgment was notified, the State contacted Mrs. Vera Valdez and her representative in order to make proposals to them and reach agreement on how it would comply with this obligation. According to the information 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph. 2