4 7. That according to the stated in article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court must be complied with promptly and entirely by the State. Likewise, article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The conventional obligation of the State Parties to comply with the decisions of the Court promptly binds all the State branches and organizations.5 8. That the State has not informed about the compliance with judgment and, therefore, has failed to carry out its conventional obligation. 9. That without the due information from the State, this Court cannot practice its supervision functions on the execution of the judgments issued. For the sake of ensuring and guaranteeing the application of the reparation measures issued, this Tribunal ought to be able to have and check the information about the execution of the Judgment. Consequently, the Court considers necessary for the State to inform about the compliance with the obligations relative to fixing a reasonable amount for the fees regulated in case C-1099 of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation, and assume the payment of the fees and costs corresponding to the lawyers of the State and the Santiago del Estero Province, as was stated in operative paragraphs second and third of the Judgment. * * * 10. That when monitoring the integral compliance with Judgment issued in the present case (supra Having Seen 1), the Court considers it indispensable for the State to present information about the operative paragraphs pending compliance according to that considered in this Order (supra Considering 9). 11. That the Court will consider the general state of compliance for such Judgment once it receives the appropriate information about the operative paragraphs related to the economical reparations pending compliance. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions, pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and Article 31(2) of its Rules of Procedure, 5 Cfr. Caso Castillo Petruzzi y otros Vs. Perú. Supervisión de Cumplimiento de Sentencia. Resolución de la Corte de 17 de noviembre de 1999. Serie C No. 59, Considerando tercero; Caso Baena Ricardo y otros Vs. Panamá, supra nota 1, Considerando quinto, y Caso Vargas Areco Vs. Paraguay, supra nota 1, Considerando cuarto.