2 d) provide free medical and psychological treatment, without any charge and through its specialized health institutions, to Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, Esmila Liliana Conislla Cárdenas, María Dolores Gómez Palomino, Luzmila Sotelo Palomino, Emiliano Palomino Buitrón, Mónica Palomino Buitrón, Rosa Palomino Buitrón Margarita Palomino Buitrón, and the girl Ana María Gómez Guevara (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment); e) implement the educational programs stipulated in the Judgment (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment); f) adopt the measures necessary to amend the penal legislation, so as to make it compatible with international standards on forced disappearance of persons (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment), and g) pay the remainder of the amounts awarded in the Judgment (operative paragraph thirteen, fourteen and fifteen of the Judgment). 3. To keep the monitoring procedure open until the obligations outlined in the declarative paragraph above have been fully complied with. 4. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat") of October 13, 2009 and August 31, 2010, whereby, following instructions from the President of the Court for this case (hereinafter "the President-in-Office"), the Republic of Peru was requested (hereinafter “the State" and "Peru") to submit the report requested by the Court in the second operative paragraph of the Order of July 1, 2009 (supra Having Seen 3). 5. The briefs of July 3, 2009 and April 15, 2010, whereby the State submitted "supporting documents for the payments made [...] to beneficiaries," as well as payments "being made [in] compliance with obligations stemming from supranational decisions," respectively. The brief of October 5, 2010, whereby the State reported on compliance with the Judgment (supra Have Seen 1). 6. The briefs of November 10, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims (hereinafter "the representatives") presented their observations on the report submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 5). 7. The brief of December 10, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") submitted its observations on the State report (supra Having Seen 5). CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention") since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decisions of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of the