9 7. The States Party to the Convention that have accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to fulfill the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, the State must report on steps taken to comply with the orders issued by the Court in said rulings. Timely observance of the obligation of the State to inform the Court of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the Court is fundamental to assess overall compliance by the State with the Judgment. 8. While overseeing comprehensive compliance with the Judgments on the merits and reparations issued in the instant case, and after analyzing the information supplied by the State, by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives in their briefs on compliance with reparations (supra Having Seen 3, 4, 5, 8 to 14, 16 and 17), the Court has verified that the State has complied with: a) payment of compensation for the pecuniary damages (operative paragraph six), which includes compensation for damages pertaining to burial service expenses incurred by the next of kin of twenty-three victims whose bodies were already delivered by the authorities (operative paragraph 6(a)); compensation for expenses incurred or to be incurred due to medical treatment that the next of kin of said victims required or will require (operative paragraph 6(b)); compensation for damages pertaining to lost earnings of the 37 murdered and missing victims (operative paragraph 6(c)); compensation for damages pertaining to the expenses incurred or to be incurred by medical treatment and purchase of the necessary means to attenuate the disabilities caused by the facts of the case to the three victims of injuries in connection with the right to humane treatment (operative paragraph 6(d)), and compensation for damages pertaining to lost earnings of the three victims of injuries in connection with the right to humane treatment (operative paragraph 6(e)); b) the parameters ordered by the Court for payment of the compensations set in operative paragraph six (operative paragraph seven); c) payment of compensation for non pecuniary damages (operative paragraph eight), including compensation for the suffering caused by the facts of the case to the 37 murdered and missing victims (operative paragraph 8(a)); compensation for the additional suffering caused by facts of the case to each of the seven murder victims who were minors at the time of said facts, in addition to the aforementioned amount (operative paragraph 8(b)); compensation for the suffering caused by the facts of the case and by the subsequent disability, to the three victims of injuries in connection with the right to humane treatment (operative paragraph 8(c)); compensation for the suffering caused by the facts of the case to the next of kin of the 37 murdered and missing victims (operative paragraph 8(d)); compensation for Whereas twelve; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence, supra note 1, para. 66; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 54, para. 37. Also see, inter alia, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. September 2, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. July 8, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 110, paras. 150 and 151; and Case of Bulacio. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, para. 142. Likewise, see Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, ECHR, Series A no. 28, para. 34; and Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch-Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914.