3 representatives of the victims’ next of kin [had] been appointed, they [could] submit their comments directly to the Court in the said period of two months. 6. To continue monitoring the aspects that [were] pending compliance of the judgment on reparations of August 27, 1998, as indicated in the second operative paragraph of [the] Order. 7. To notify [the] Order to the State, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and, through it, Diego Lavado and Carlos Varela Álvarez. 6. Notes CDH-11.009/340 of April 6, 2004, and CDH-11.009/342 of August 13, 2004, wherein the Secretariat of the Court reminded the State that the deadline for submitting the report required under operative paragraph four of the Court’s order of November 27, 2003 (supra Having Seen 5.4) expired on April 1, 2004, and therefore asked the State to submit that report as soon as possible. As of the date of this Order, the State has still not presented the report in question. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Argentina has been a Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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 State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. Because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is to comply with them fully and promptly. 5. April 1, 2004, was the deadline that the Court set in its November 27, 2003 Order (supra Having Seen 5.4) for the State to present its report on compliance with the obligations established in the judgment in question. 6. Following instructions from the President of the Court (supra Having Seen 6), on two different occasions the Secretariat asked the State to submit the report on compliance with the judgment; to date, no information has been sent. 7. Because the Court has not received any information on compliance with the Judgment on reparations of August 27, 1998, it does not have the data it needs to assess whether any reparations have been complied with and to determine which reparations the Court ordered are still pending compliance. 8. The Court will consider the general status of compliance with its August 27, 1998 Judgment on reparations once it receives the pertinent information. THEREFORE: 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131.