2 10. Declare[d] that the State [had to] comply with [the] judgment within one year of receiving notification thereof. 11. Declare[d] that, [if] the State [fell] in arrears with the payments, it [was to] pay interest on the amount owed corresponding to bank interest on payments in arrears in Peru. 12. Decide[d] that it [would] monitor compliance with [the] judgment and [would] consider the case closed when the State ha[d] complied fully with its provisions. Within one year from notification of the judgment, the State [was to] provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to comply with [the] judgment, as stated in paragraph 186 [of the judgment]. 2. Note CDH-12.034/187 of March 12, 2003, wherein the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), in keeping with Article 57(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Court”), notified the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) of the February 28, 2003 Judgment (supra Having Seen 1). 3. Note CDH-12.034/195 dated April 1, 2004, wherein the Secretariat, on instructions from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), requested the State to submit the report on compliance with the Judgment, since the deadline for the State to present the report in question had expired on March 12, 2004. 4. Note CDH-12.034/199 dated May 4, 2004, where the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, reiterated the request made in the note of April 1, 2004 (supra Having Seen 3) to the effect that the State had to submit the report on compliance with the Judgment as soon as possible. 5. Note CDH- 12.034/203 of July 27, 2004, where the Secretariat, following the instructions of the Court en banc, informed the State that at its LXIII regular session it was brought to the Court’s attention that Peru had not submitted the report that it was to have presented by March 12, 2004 at the latest (supra Having Seen 1, 2, 3 and 4). The Secretariat again asked the State to send forthwith the report on compliance with the Judgment delivered by the Court, as had been requested in notes CDH-12.034/195 of April 1, 2004, and CDH- 12.034/199 of May 4, 2004 (supra Having Seen 3 and 4). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. The Court delivered its Judgment on merits, reparations and costs in this case on February 28, 2003 (supra Having Seen 1). 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