6 exercised, so that they are capable of legally ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.14 19. In cases of serious human rights violations, such as those declared in the Judgment on the merits in the instant case, "the performance of an ex officio, prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation would constitute a fundamental element essential for the protection of some of the rights affected or suspended in these situations, such as personal liberty, personal integrity and life.”15 In line with this thought, the Court has declared also in the instant case16 that the obligation to investigate must be complied with “in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.”17 The investigation conducted by the State in compliance with this obligation “must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the Government.” This assessment is valid whatsoever the agent to which the violation may eventually be attributed, even individuals.”18 20. In cases such as this, compliance with the obligations to do justice through adequate investigation and punishment of those responsible justifies the remaining reparation measures and defines the real dimension of the commitment by the State regarding the international treaties on human rights its ratifies.19 Once the international proceeding is concluded and Judgment has been rendered, it is necessary for the State to avoid repetition of the conducts that resulted in the lawsuit. The judgment and reparations ordered therein should provide a new framework and new vision to effectively and timely ensure the identified problems.20 21. In that regard, the Court has indicated that, in order to fulfill the obligation to monitor compliance with the commitment made by State Parties as set forth in Article 68(1) of the Convention, the Court must first be aware of the level of compliance with its decisions. To that effect, the Tribunal must be able to prove and have information regarding the execution of the Judgment, which is “the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of such ruling”.21 That the duty to report to the Court on the implementation of measures is twofold, which, for effective compliance, requires the formal submission of a document within the 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 16 and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 12, Considering clause No. 12. 15 Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 17, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Court of November 23, 2009, para. 143. 16 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela, supra note 7, para. 61. 17 Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 177; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 17, and Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 15. 18 Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 177; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 17 and Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra note 17, Considering clause No. 15. 19 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 23. 20 Cf. Case Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 24. 21 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 2, para. 73; and Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of December 18, 2009, Considering clause No. 9; and Case of La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 21, 2009, Considering clause No. 24.