4 internal obstacles that impede the explanation of the facts and the determination of those responsible, the representatives “indicate[d] that these commitments do not relieve the State of its responsibility to take, as its duty, domestic legal actions that lead to compliance with what the Court has ordered”; and with regard to the search for the remains: e) they stated that the conditions under which the mentioned search procedures were carried out were neither the most appropriate nor effective for obtaining results, and that “[n]one of these searches has borne fruit due to the lack of planning, organization, and foresight with which they have been carried out”. Likewise, they stated their “worry that the scheduling of [a new] search is not preceded by evaluation and planning in relation to previous searches. This oversight could lead once more to failure […] and consequently to the dilution of the hope of a prompt recovery”. 5. The briefs dated November 5, 2004, August 12, 2005, August 10, 2006, November 12, 2006, and January 25, 2008, through which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed its comments on the information submitted by the State and addressed the status of compliance with the Judgment. 6. The Order dated December 10, 2007, through which the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights called a private hearing for the monitoring of compliance at the seat of the Tribunal, with the objective of listening to the State, to the Inter-American Commission, and to the representatives of the victims and their next of kin on the implementation of reparations still pending compliance. 7. The declarations and the information contributed by the parties in the private hearing for the monitoring of compliance, held February 4, 2008.1 CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring the compliance with its decisions is an inherent jurisdictional power of the Court. 2. That Colombia ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 31, 1973, and recognized jurisdictional authority of the Inter-American Court, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, on June 21, 1985. 1 In keeping with Article 6(2) of the Rules, the Court held the hearing with a commission of Judges comprised of: Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga, President; Judge Leonardo A. Franco, and Judge Margarette May Macaulay. Attendees of the hearing included: a) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights: Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez and Karin Mantel, aids; b) on behalf of the State of Colombia: Clara Inés Vargas Silva, Director of Human Rights and DIH, Ministry of Foreign Relations; Francisco Javier Echeverri, Director of International Matters, Attorney General of the Nation’s Office; Alex Salgado Lozano, Legal Director, Ministry of National Defense; Luis Fernando Marín, Prosecutor, Attorney General of the Nation’s Office; Juana Inés Acosta, Coordinator of the Inter-Institutional Operative Group, Ministry of Foreign Relations; and Sonia Uribe, Coordinator of the Constitutional Operative Group (Grupo Operativo Constitucional), Ministry of National Defense; and c) on behalf of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin: Gustavo Gallón Giraldo and Luz Marina Monzón, both with the Colombian Jurists Commission.