5 23. The notes of the Secretariat of January 30, 2009, through which it reiterated to the State the requirements made by the Judges at the end of the hearing. It was indicated that the State would have a thirty-day period to present the written reports in which it should refer, specifically although not exclusively, to the following: a) the matter of the verification carried out prior to payment of that ordered in the Judgment in what refers to any pending tax debts the beneficiary may have; b) the use of an exchange rate different to the one ordered in the Judgment for the realization of the payments; c) the announcements made on the radio for the payments; d) the payment of the pecuniary reparations directly to the beneficiaries and not through the representatives, and e) the investigation and search for the remains of the victims. It was indicated that the representatives and the Commission would have a fifteen-day term to present the observations considered appropriate to that state report. 24. The brief of February 23, 2009, through which the State presented the report required during the hearing (supra Having Seen paragraph 23) and the brief of April 2, 2009, through which the State informed of the compliance with the thirteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment. 25. The brief of April 17, 2009, through which the representatives presented their observations to the state’s reports received on February 23rd and April 2, 2009. 26. The brief of June 1, 2009, through which the representatives presented a “brief that the next of kin of the case had addressed to the Court [regarding] the reparation measure that referred to the medical and psychological attention.” 27. The brief of June 9, 2009, through which the Commission presented its observations to the state’s reports of February 23 and April 2, 2009, as well as to the respective observations of the representatives. Considering: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973 and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.4 Gallon Giraldo,Jahel Quiroga Carrillo, and María Victoria Fallón, of the Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ), and Michael Camillero and Francisco Quintana, from the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). 3 Newspaper article titled “Compliance with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights “Pueblo Bello Massacre”” of January 31, 2005. 4 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering clause number three; and Case of the