5 conditions for this type of facts to happen again.2 11. That, furthermore, the States Parties to the American Convention which have acknowledged the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court, have the obligation to comply with the obligations set forth by the Court. This obligation includes the duty of the State to inform on the measures adopted to comply with what has been ordered by the Court. The timely fulfillment of the State obligation to inform the Court on how it is complying with each one of the points ordered by said authority is critical to assess the status of compliance of the case.3 Said information must be detailed and updated, and must allow the Court to verify that the State is adopting the measures necessary to comply with the Court’s judgments. 12. That pursuant to operative paragraph two of the Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen Clause No. 2), the State must continue to inform the InterAmerican Court on the concrete and detailed measures adopted to guarantee the compliance with the obligation to investigate the denounced facts in the instant case, try and, should it be the case, punish those responsible for the disappearance and death of Mr. Nicholas Chapman-Blake. The State shall submit the pertinent documentation, which supports the new actions effected. 13. That the Court shall consider the general status of compliance with the Judgments on the merits and reparations (supra Having Seen Clauses No. 1 and 2), once it receives the pertinent information regarding the only aspect pending compliance of said Judgments. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, exercising its monitoring powers of compliance with its judgments, in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of the Statute and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 2 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156; Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 300; and Case of the Rochela Massacre, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 148. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause No. 7; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 30, 2008, Considering Clause No. 7; and Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Monitorin Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2008, Considering Clause No. 7. 3