3 7. That every State Party to the Convention having recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court has the duty to fulfill the obligations imposed by the Court. This duty includes the obligation of the State to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 * * * 8. That as regards the obligation to secure, within a reasonable time, that the domestic proceedings instituted in order to investigate and punish those responsible for the events in the instant case be operative (Operative Paragraph No. 6 of the Judgment), the State reported that, among other measures, the Ministry of Justice and the Special Secretary of Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic (SEDH) commenced proceedings before the National Justice Council (CNJ) to verify the existence of undue delays in the criminal proceedings related to the instant case. The CNJ sent the petition to the enforcement authority of the Court of Justice of the State of Ceará, which has original jurisdiction to hear the case. This entity concluded that no excess in the term of criminal proceedings or improper performance of the magistrates in charge thereof was verified; that notwithstanding, the judge hearing the case was advised to adopt adequate judicial measures to promptly settle the case. Moreover, the State reported that, among other measures taken, on September 22, 2008, the representatives of Abogacía General de la Unión, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the SEDH held meetings with the representatives of the Judiciary and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Ceará to discuss the need to immediately comply with the Judgment. 9. That later on, Brazil reported that on June 29, 2009, Criminal Action No. 2000.0172.9186-1/0 was resolved in the first instance by Tercer Juzgado de la Comarca de Sobral (Court No. 3 of the Community of Sobral), State of Ceará. Such decision sentenced Sérgio Antunes-Ferreira-Gomes, Carlos Alberto Rodrigues-dos Santos, André Tavares-do Nascimento, Maria Salete Moraes Melo-de-Mesquita, Francisco Ivo de Vasconcelos and Elias Gomes-Coimbra, for the crime of mistreatment resulting in death to the detriment of Damião Ximenes-Lopes. Such individuals were sentenced to imprisonment for six years, initially under a semi-flexible system. Moreover, the State also made reference to the first instance judgment rendered in the civil jurisdiction, whereby the clinical director and the administrative director, together with the owner of the Casa de Reposo Guararapes center were sentenced to payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the mother of the victim. Additionally, it reported that the Court of Justice of the State of Ceará sent bills to the Legislature aimed at increasing the number of State magistrates, among other improvements, to speed up and de-bureaucratize procedural instances. Lastly, the State mentioned its willingness to make available to the representatives any information on the case and to hold meetings with them as necessary. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, Considering clause No. 7.