9 cases of extra-legal executions and forced disappearance of people, it is essential for the States to effectively investigate and punish all those responsible, as not doing so would create, within the environment of impunity, conditions for this type of facts to occur again, which is contrary to the duty to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention with regard the victim and the next of kin. 12 15. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case. 13 Furthermore, the General Assembly of the OAS repeated that, in order for the Court to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, the States Parties need to provide, in time fashion, the information requested by the Court. 14 16. That, for the sake of ensuring and safeguarding the application of the measures ordered by the Court, the Tribunal must be able to prove and have information regarding the execution of the Judgment, which is “the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of such ruling.” 15 17. That, in accordance with the operative paragraph two of the Judgment on the reparations (supra Having Seen clause 2), the State should continue informing the Inter-American Court, semiannually, on the measures adopted to ensure the compliance with the obligation to investigation the facts denounced in the case at hand, prosecute and, if applicable, punish the responsible of the disappearance and death of Mr. Nicholas Chapman Blake. 18. That the Court will consider the general status of the compliance with the Judgment on the Merits (supra Having Seen clause 1) and of the Judgment on the Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 148; Case of Miguel Castro- Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 256. 12 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156, Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 10, para. 148, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 10, para. 146. 13 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; Considering Clause seven; Case of Garcia Asto and Ramirez Rojas. Supra note 5, Considering clause eight and Case of Ricardo Canese. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering Clause thirteen. 14 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 15 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73 and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 7, Considering clause eight.