10 although it is part of the State and has the same or greater responsibility than the other bodies that are contributing in one way or another to compliance with the Judgment.” 49. That the Court recalls that the treaty obligation of the States Parties to comply promptly with the Court’s decisions is binding on all the State’s powers and organs.9 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions and in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That, as decided in Considering paragraphs 35 to 38 of this Order, the State has complied fully with the eleventh operative paragraph of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs, regarding the organization of a public act acknowledging its responsibility. 2. That, as indicated in Considering paragraphs 44 to 47 of this Order, the State has complied partially with the thirteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs, regarding the payment of the compensation and the reimbursement of costs and expenses. 3. That it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the following pending points: (a) The granting of the traditional territory to the members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment); (b) The provision of the basic goods and services required for the subsistence of the members of the Community (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment); (c) The establishment of a fund exclusively for the purchase of the lands to be granted to the members of the Community (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment); (d) The implementation of a community development fund and program (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment); (e) The adoption of such domestic legislative, administrative and other measures as may be necessary to guarantee the effective exercise of the right to property of the members of the indigenous peoples (tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment), and Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence, supra note 2, para. 60; Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Compliance with judgment, supra note 4, seventh considering paragraph, and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph. 9