c) To implement, within a reasonable time, a program to educate and train agents of justice and health care professionals on the laws enacted by Ecuador with regard to patients’ rights, and on the punishment for failing to comply with them, in the terms of paragraph 164 of th[e] Judgment (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment). 3. The reports of the State received on December 27, 2010, March 4, 2011, June 21, July 27 and December 2 and 13, 2012, in which it referred to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 4. The communications of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of January 10, February 17 and September 16, 2011, and March 8 and May 10, 2012, in which the State was required to submit a more detailed and updated report on the measures taken to comply with the fifth, sixth, and seventh operative paragraphs of the Judgment (supra having seen paragraphs 1 and 2). 5. The briefs of Mrs. Cornejo, victim in the case, received on February 22, April 26 and November 15, 2011, May 21, July 23, September 19 and 30, and November 15, 2012, and January 17, 2013, in which she presented her observations on the State’s reports. 6. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) received on May 4, 2011, August 6 and September 12, 2012, and January 7 and 18, 2013, in which it presented its observations on the State’s reports. 7. The communication of the Secretariat of November 14, 2012, in which it required the State to provide further information on the publication that was pending (supra having seen paragraph 2). On December 2, 2012, the State presented the information requested, and on December 13, it forwarded the originals of the respective publications. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent faculties of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 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 States must ensure that the decisions of the Court in its rulings are implemented at the domestic level.2 4. Owing to the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s rulings corresponds to a 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 24, 2012, second considering paragraph. 2