comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 1 3. The States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in its judgments. Prompt compliance with the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each aspect ordered by the latter is essential in order to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 2 Obligation to provide psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas Fernández and Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández (thirteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) A. Information provided by the State 4. The State indicated that “the family of Mrs. Kawas Fernández […] notified the Attorney General’s Office […] that they did not wish to receive psychological and/or psychiatric treatment,” and this would be “respected by the State, […] because measures of reparation cannot be understood as an obligation of the victims.” Based on the foregoing, the State forwarded the Court a certification dated April 24, 2012, signed by Jorge Jesus Kawas Fernández, “acting on behalf of Blanca Fernández, Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernandez, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas and [himself]," indicating that "they [have] not considered that any member of the family required psychological and/or psychiatric treatment,” as the State was ordered to provide in the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1). B. Observations of the representatives 5. The representatives confirmed that the victims “indeed […] wish to waive” this measure of reparation and requested the Court "to consider [it] fulfilled.” C. Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 6. The Commission took note of the information provided by the representatives and the State and, based on it, indicated that “it [was] not necessary for the Court to continue monitoring this aspect.” D. Considerations of the Court 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005; seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2