4 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To such effect, the States must ensure implementation, at the domestic level, of the requirements stated by the Court in its Orders.2 4. That by virtue of the nature of the Court’s judgments as final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be promptly fulfilled by the State in all of their aspects. 5. That the States Parties to the Convention which have recognised the Court’s contentious jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations ordered by the Court. In this sense, Peru must adopt all measures necessary to comply effectively with the Court’s orders as per its Judgment of November 3, 1997 (supra Having seen 1) and its Judgment on Reparations of November 27, 1998 (supra Having seen 2). This obligation includes the State’s duty to report to the Court on measures adopted to comply with the Court’s orders contained in the cited judgments. Such obligation of the State to keep the Court informed concerning its orders is of basic importance to assess the status of compliance in the case. 6. That the term provided for in the Compliance with Judgment Order delivered by the Court on November 27, 2003, (supra Having seen 3) for the State to submit a report on the requirements not yet complied with mentioned below, expired on April 1, 2004: a) follow up concerning the steps taken to investigate the facts of the instant case and to identify and punish those responsible, since, on the basis of the information provided, it is not possible to conclude that this obligation will, to date, have been fulfilled in conformity with the decision of this Court (Operative paragraph two of the Judgment on Reparations of November 27, 1998); and b) efforts made to locate the mortal remains of Ernesto Rafael CastilloPáez (Judgment on the Merits of November 3, 1997). 7. That the Secretariat has, on two occasions and following instructions from the President and the full Court (supra Having seen 4 y 7), required the State to submit the report on compliance with the judgments, the latter not having yet provided any information in this respect. 8. That since the Court has not received the information required pursuant to the November 27, 2003, Order (supra Having seen 3) concerning compliance with the judgment on the merits of November 3, 1997, and on reparations of November 27, 1998, it does not have all the data necessary to assess whether there were reparations that would have been provided and to determine which reparations ordered by the Court have not been fulfilled and are still pending. 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131.