are parties.” 2 Therefore, the States must ensure implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. A. Obligation to pay the amounts for fair compensation, and interest accrued on pecuniary damage (second, third and fourth operative paragraphs of the Judgment on reparations) 4. In its brief of April 23, 2013, the State advised that it had taken the following “steps to comply with the measures ordered by the Court […] in the judgment of March 3, 2011”: Regarding fair compensation a) On March 28, 2013, the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship made a transfer in favor of María Salvador Chiriboga, that included the sum of US$3,741,000 (three million seven hundred and forty-one thousand United States dollars) corresponding to the payment of the second tranche for fair compensation. 3 Regarding pecuniary damage b) On March 28, 2013, the Municipality of the Metropolitan District of Quito made a transfer of US$1,820,545.50 (one million eight hundred and twenty thousand five hundred and forty-five United States dollars and fifty cents), plus US$66,606.20 (sixty-six thousand six hundred and six United States dollars and twenty cents), 4 for a total of US$1,887,151.70 (one million eight hundred and eighty-seven thousand one hundred and fifty-one United States dollars and seventy cents), corresponding to the total payment of the second tranche for pecuniary damage. 5 5. In their observations of August 7, 2013, the representatives indicated that “the information provided by the State […] is true and it has, indeed, made the payments ordered by the Court.” Lastly, they indicated that, “to date, the State has complied with what the Court ordered” and that “the payments that should be made on March 30, 2014, 2015 and 2016 remain to be made.” 6. In its communication of June 14, 2013, the Commission “appreciate[d …] the information provided by the State regarding the amounts that it indicated had been paid.” Despite this, it indicated that it “awaited information from the representatives in this regard.” 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 30, 2007, third considering paragraph, and Case of the Yean y Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2007, fourth considering paragraph. 3 In its report, the State indicated that, of the transfer of US$3,807,606.20 (three million eight hundred and seven thousand six hundred and six United States dollars and twenty cents) made by the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship on March 28, 2013, US$66,606.20 (sixty-six thousand six hundred and six United States dollars and twenty cents) was part of the payment corresponding to the second tranche for pecuniary damage. 4 damage. As mentioned above, this amount corresponds to part of the payment of the second tranche for pecuniary 5 According to the State, the Municipality of the Metropolitan District of Quito made a second transfer of US$1,820,545.50 (one million eight hundred and twenty thousand five hundred and forty-five United States dollars and fifty cents), to which, according to the State, should be added the sum of US$66,606.20 (sixty-six thousand six hundred and six United States dollars and twenty cents) all of which corresponds to the payment of the second tranche for pecuniary damage. 3