compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court in the instant case (supra having seen paragraph 1). Also, the brief of October 20, 2011, in which the State requested a “sixmonth extension to comply with operative paragraphs 12 and 14” of the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1). 3. The briefs of November 13, 2009, and October 28, 2011, in which the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations on the briefs presented by the State (supra having seen paragraph 2). 4. The communications of December 11, 2009, and December 16, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations on the briefs of the State and the representatives (supra having seen paragraphs 2 and 3). 5. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of October 26, 2011, in which, in response to the brief of October 20, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 2), the State was informed that it should present, within six months, a detailed report on compliance with the reparations ordered in the twelfth and fourteenth operative paragraphs of the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. An inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the judgments delivered by the Court. In addition, Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the States must ensure implementation of the Court’s decisions in its judgments at the domestic level.1 3. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the actions taken to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in its decisions. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the way in which each measure ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.2 A. Obligation to pay Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas Fernández and Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández, the amounts established in the judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses (eighth operative paragraph of the judgment) 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. 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 Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 201, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of Order of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph six. 2