9 regions of the country to return to their homes, and c) the status of all the beneficiaries of the measures. In addition, the State has not reported on the measures taken to allow the representatives to participate in the implementation of the provisional measures. 22. Regarding this, the States Party to the Convention that have recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with their obligations as established by the Tribunal. This includes the duty of the State to inform the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the order of the Tribunal in said decisions.8 The duty to report constitutes an obligation that, for effective compliance with it, requires the formal submission of a document within a certain period of time and containing specific, true, current, and detailed references to the subjects with which the obligation is concerned.9 The timely observance of the State obligation to inform the Tribunal on how it is complying with each of its orders is critical for evaluating overall compliance with the Judgment.10Likewise, the Tribunal highlights that the Secretariat of the Court has addressed the representatives on two occasions (supra Having Seen 11 and 13) to asked them to submit their comments on the State’s brief submitted on October 22, 2010. As of the date of the issuance of this order, those comments had not been submitted by the deadline set for doing so, for which reason the Court finds that they have not complied with the duty to report in a timely fashion to the Tribunal.11 E) Regarding the investigations launched with regard to the alleged extrajudicial executions 23. With regard to the pleadings related to the judicial investigations carried out by the State into the alleged extrajudicial executions committed against the beneficiaries of these measures, as with any other action to investigate acts of harassment, threats, or the situations that put the lives or personal integrity of the beneficiaries at risk, particularly with regard to the alleged absence of results and the type of investigations the State is carrying out, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that before, during the processing of these provisional measures, the Court had been maintaining the standard of requesting the State to investigate the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures and to report to the Tribunal on the investigation. However, taking into account the characteristics of these provisional measures and that the adversarial case was brought before the Tribunal, the Court finds that the issue of the investigations implies an analysis of the merits that is beyond the scope of the provisional measures. 8 Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering 7; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 4, 2010, Considering 21, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 17, 2010, Considering 7. 9 Cf. Asunto Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of December 2, 2003, Considering 12; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al., supra footnote 9, Considering 21, and Case of the Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 4, 2010, Considering 21. 10 Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering 5; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al., supra footnote 9, Considering 21, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brasil, supra footnote 9, Considering 7. 11 Cf. and Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance and Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of November 26, 2008, Considering 30; Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. supra footnote 3, Considering 6, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 7, 2009, Considering 26.