8 State submitted documentation and information relating to the steps taken to "transfer the compensation awarded by the Inter-American Court to the minor Ana María Gómez Guevara and Rodrigo Esteban Palomino Buitrón." In this regard, it reported that on August 3, 2010 the Special Supranational Public Prosecutor sent an official letter to the President of the Superior Court of Lima, requesting "information related to the implementation of the Juzgado Especializado en Ejecución de Sentencias Supranacionales [Specialized Court in Excecution of Supranational Judgments]," in order to fulfill its objective, and on August 16, 2010 the Prosecutor filed a recourse to appear before the Juzgado Especializado en Sentencias Supranacionales [Specialized Court in Excecution of Supranational Judgments of the Superior Court of Lima], sending the Judgment of the Inter-American Court and the Monitoring Orders. 31. The representatives reported that "they intend[ed] to ask the Juzgado Especializado en ejecución de sentencias supranacionales [Specialized Court in Excecution of Supranational Judgments] authorization to pay the compensation amounts into a financial institution, however, the Court manifested that it did not have the case information to process [their] request." Regarding the recourse to appear before the Juzgado Especializado en Sentencias Supranacionales de la Corte Superior de Lima [Specialized Court in Supranational Judgments of the Superior Court of Lima] of August 16, 2010, reported by the State, the representatives warned that to date they had no information on the results of this measure and thus reiterated that the payment of compensation to Ana María Gómez Guevara and Mercedes Palomino Buitrón is still pending compliance, as well as the necessary administrative steps to make the corresponding payments. 32. The President-in-Office considered, in virtue of the statements made by the parties, that there is a need for updated information and a detailed response from the State on the observations made by the representatives and the Commission on the full and effective compliance with this point of the Judgment. h) On the State's duty to report on measures taken 33. In notes sent by the Secretariat, following instructions from the President-inOffice (supra Having Seen 4), it reiterated to the State the request made by the Court in the Order of July 1, 20097 thus, after more than a year, the State filed a compliance report that does not contain information on all outstanding points. 34. Without adequate information from the State, this Court can not exercise its role of monitoring the execution of judgments. It is pertinent to remember that providing sufficient information on measures taken is a duty of the State that has been provided for by this Court8 and the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, 7 In accordance with the second operative paragraph of the Order of July 1, 2009, the State was requested to submit "by no later than September 30, 2009, a report indicat[ing] all measures taken to comply with the reparations ordered by this Court that are pending compliance [...]." Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, operative paragraph 2. 8 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause five. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Surinam. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2010, Considering Clause seven, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering Clause seven.