to simply forward evidentiary documents, but rather, the parties are required to present an argument relating this evidence with the point that it seeks to establish.7 16. Furthermore, this Court cannot exercise its power to monitor the execution of its judgments if the State fails to comply with its obligation to duly inform on the measures adopted. In this regard, the obligation of the State to present sufficient information on the measures adopted is a duty already established by the Court,8 and the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated that States Parties must provide information in an opportune manner, in order for the Court to satisfy its obligation to report on compliance with its rulings.9 17. In light of the aforementioned, the Court considers that while the State has carried out some actions in the execution of this specific obligation, the State still has not provided sufficient evidence to opportunely assess if the domestic measures adopted “regulate the procedures and the requirements for acquiring Dominican nationality upon late registration of birth,” pursuant to that established in paragraph 239 of the Judgment ordered by the Tribunal on September 8, 2005. Therefore, the Court reiterates the request made to the State to present a clear, specific, and detailed report, wherein it specifies: a) the specific legislative, administrative, and other measures carried out in compliance with that ordered, subsequent to the issuance of the Judgment; and b) in what way these measures regulate the procedures and requirements for acquiring Dominican nationality by way of late declaration of birth, pursuant to that established in operative paragraph eight of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1). Moreover, the Court considers it indispensible that the representatives and the Commission state the measures that satisfy compliance with this obligation in their observations, in a specific and justified manner. 18. The Court shall consider the general state of compliance with the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs of September 8, 2005 once the relevant information is received on the obligations pending compliance. THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and 31 and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES THAT: 1. Pursuant to that noted in Considering clauses 10 and 11 of this Order, to date, the State has not complied with its obligation to indicate the measures taken to organize a public 7 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 277; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 198, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador . Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 233. 8 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering clause five; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 22, 2010, Considering clause seven, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause nine. 9 Cf. General Assembly, Order AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10) approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010, entitled, “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, operative paragraph four. 6