4. The communication of August 14, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations on the information provided by the State. 5. The communications of August 6, August 16 and September 21, 2012, in which the Secretariat of the Court reiterated to the representatives the request to forward their observations on the State’s report, the time frame for which had expired on July 23, 2012. On October 23, 2012, the representatives presented the observations requested. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), States Parties must comply fully and promptly with the judgments delivered by the Court. Furthermore, 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 which they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 3. The States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in its judgments. Prompt compliance with the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each aspect ordered by the latter is essential in order to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.2 4. The time frame for the presentation of the first report on compliance with the Judgment expired on March 23, 2012. On June 19, 2012, the State forwarded a document from the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship dated May 22, 2012, describing the measures of satisfaction that had been complied with pursuant to the Judgment. In view of the fact that some progress has been made in compliance with the measures of reparation ordered, the Court finds it pertinent to issue this Order. A. Obligation to pay the amounts for fair compensation, the interest incurred on the pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and for the taxes and fines collected unduly together with the corresponding interest, as well as costs and expenses (second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh operative paragraphs of the Judgment on reparations) 5. In its brief of June 19, 2012, the State advised that it had made the following payments to Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, “within the time frame established by the Court, […] through the Ministry of Finance”: 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005; seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2