14. Also, during that hearing, in response to a proposal from the Inter-American Commission, Venezuela accepted the idea of ”making the activities that will be carried out in the investigation official by means of a timetable, [in order to] establish time frames and follow up on them.” Consequently, the Court decided, inter alia, to require the State to submit, by June 25, 2010, at the latest, a timetable with specific, clear and comprehensive information. Venezuela did not forward the timetable or the said information, even though it had undertaken to do so during the said hearing (supra having seen paragraphs 2 and 3). 15. In addition, on July 5, 2011, the Court asked the State to provide updated information on compliance with the measure pending compliance and, specifically, the timetable indicated in the order of February 4, 2010, granting Venezuela a time frame that expired on September 2, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 6). Despite this request, which was reiterated twice, on October 7 and November 22, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 7), and that more than five months have passed since the initial period granted expired, and three months since the last communication of the Secretariat, the State has not presented the information requested. Consequently, the Court does not have recent information on progress in compliance with the pending measure. 16. This omission by the State is contrary to its obligation to comply with the measures of reparation ordered by the Court and to advise the Court of the actions taken to implement them in the domestic sphere; moreover, it denies the right of access to international justice to the victims and beneficiaries of the said reparations.5 17. In this regard, Venezuela must take all necessary steps to comply immediately and effectively with the measures ordered by this Court in the judgments. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the actions taken to comply with the measures ordered in the judgment. The Court finds it necessary to emphasize and recall that prompt observance of the State's obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each measure ordered by the Court is essential for assessing the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole, and is not fulfilled by the mere formal presentation of a document to the Court; but rather, it is a twofold obligation that, to be fulfilled effectively, requires the formal presentation of a document within the time frame granted with specific, true, current and detailed information on the issues to which this obligation refers.6 18. Without the appropriate information from the State, this Court cannot exercise its function of monitoring the execution of its judgments. It is pertinent to recall that the provision of sufficient information on the actions it takes is a State obligation established by this Court. 7 The General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated “the need for the States Parties to provide, in a timely fashion, 5 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez, v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, eleventh considering paragraph, and Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, tenth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez , supra note 5, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 10, 2011, fifteenth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners V. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Blanco Romero v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2011, thirty-eighth considering paragraph. 5