4 CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring the compliance with its decisions is an inherent jurisdictional power of the Court. 2. That on June 24, 2005, the Court issued the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs in this case (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The State, therefore, should assure the domestic implementation of the Tribunal’s decisions1. * * * 4. That upon monitoring the full compliance with the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs in this case, and after analyzing the information and evidence offered by the State, as well as the comments presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives in their briefs on compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2 and 4), this Tribunal finds that the State has fully complied with each of the measures of reparation called for in the Judgment. 5. That the file of this case contains evidence indicating that the State has published in the Official Daily of Ecuador – the Official Registry – and in the daily “La Hora,” of high national circulation, both the section entitled “Proven Facts” and the Judgment’s operative paragraphs (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 4(a)). 6. That according to the information and evidence submitted during these proceedings, the State has erased the criminal record of Mr. Rigoberto Acosta Calderón from the public registries, including from the databases of the Consejo Nacional de Control de Sustancias Estupefacientes y Psicotrópicas (National Council for the Control of Narcotics), as well as from the registry of criminal records found in the Comandancia General (Central Command) of the National Police (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(b), 3(b) and 4(b)). 7. That, given that the current whereabouts of Mr. Acosta Calderón are unknown, the State has made a deposit in his name for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and reimbursed costs and expenses through a certificate of deposit in the name of the victim at the Banco de Guayaquil for the amount of US$62,000 (sixty-two thousand dollars of the United States of America) (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(c), 3(c), and 4(c)). The Court deems it important to note that, according to the stipulations in paragraph 170 of this case’s 1 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdictional authority. Sentence, November 28, 2003. Series C, No. 104, Paragraph 131; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 28, 2007, fourth Considering paragraph, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 30, 2007, third Considering paragraph.