6 pertinent domestic measures and actions to conduct DNA tests that may allow identification of the three victims. 15. That the Inter-American Commission, in the comments filed on December 8, 2003, referred to the reports submitted by the State and understood that the exhumation and identification of the three victims of human rights violations was highly significant for their next of kin as it was for the society as a whole in terms of access to the truth, so its scope was national.It affirmed, accordingly, that an exhumation as the one conducted in relation to the victims in the instant case could not be detached from the search for truth and reconciliation context existing at that time, within the scope of the State obligation to comply with the Judgment of the Court. Likewise, the Commission acknowledged the efforts of the State aimed at complying with the Judgment, and observed that the implementation of certain measures of the CVR might serve compliance with Operative Paragraph No. 4 of the Judgment of Reparations. Ultimately, it requested the Court to urge the State to continue its activities in order to locate the remains of the victims and deliver them to their next of kin; to submit further detailed information on the development of the measures recommended by the CVR about the adoption of similar measures to locate, exhume, identify and deliver the remains of the victims to their next of kin. 16. The Commission reiterated that the State had failed to comply with the unfulfilled measure of reparation and that it would only be satisfied upon localization, identification and delivery of the victims´ remains to their next of kin, with a degree of certainty supported by identification tests and complemented with DNA analysis, following international forensic criminology standards and techniques, to provide trustworthy results to the victims´ next of kin, the administration of justice and the entities of the Inter-American system. To that respect, the Commission noted that the State had provided scarce information on the DNA tests of Edgar Edison ZentenoEscobar’s and William Jans Zenteno-Escobar’s remains, because “no material and effective results” had been obtained regarding said testing process. 17. That the State filed its last report on July 26, 2006; and that on November 5, 2007, it was requested to file a report not later than December 10, 2007. The Secretariat of the Court, following instructions of the President, sent notes on several occasions (supra Having Seen clause No. 7) reminding the State of its obligation to report on the measures adopted to comply with the Judgment. 18. That, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the States Parties must fully comply with the judgments entered by the Court in timely fashion. Furthermore, 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.” The treaty obligation of the States Parties to timely comply with the decisions of the Court is binding on all the State’s powers and organs.7 7 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of February 07, 2008, Considering clause No. 7; and Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of August 05, 2008, Considering clause No. 7.