as per the instructions of the President of the Tribunal in the present case, by way of six notes of the Secretariat of the Court (supra Having Seen 6). 23. On the other hand, the Court notes the State's claim regarding the alleged lack of sufficient funds of the Office of the Comptroller General to execute the Judgment, and regarding other issues related to internal budgetary rules, as well as the comments of the representative on the matter (supra Considering Clause 14 and 16). It also notes that, since the issuance of the Judgment, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic has sent numerous requests to the Ministry of Economy and Finance who has repeatedly stated, inter alia, that it must take the funds from its own budget, prioritizing its expenses (supra Considering Clause 16). In this regard, the Court reiterates the following terms of its Judgment: [...] Even though the State affirmed that it had adopted a series of administrative, legislative and judicial measures aimed at overcoming said economic constraint in order to comply with its treaty obligations […], these measures have still not been implemented. Hence, the Tribunal has held that budget regulations may not be used as an excuse for many years of delay in complying with the judgments.17 24. In addition, the Court deems it appropriate to recall that the obligation in Operative Paragraph 6 of the Judgment is an obligation of the State, and for reasons of domestic order, it cannot abandon its pre-established international responsibility. 18 Furthermore, it recalls that the treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.19 25. The Court appreciates the measures taken by the State to separate and obtain the funds available to fulfill this obligation. However, it notes that this reparation measure should have been fulfilled within a reasonable time, given that, almost two years after the issuance of the Judgment, the process of implementing the rulings of the Constitutional Court appears to be awaiting adjudication due to the latest appeal lodged by the Office of the Comptroller General (supra Considering Clause 15). However, given the lack of information from the State, the Court does not have sufficient information to enable it to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of other efforts made by the State to fulfill this reparation measure. 26. The Court reminded that the obligation to respect the rulings of the Court includes the State's duty to inform the Court about the measures taken to comply with the Court's provisions in the said Judgment. The obligation to inform the Court about the compliance of the Judgment requires, for its effective implementation, the formal presentation of a document, within time limits, as well as specific, accurate, up-to-date and detailed reference material on the issues related to the obligation.20 Timely fulfillment of the State's 17 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 75. 18 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5. 19 Cf. Case Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause 13; Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 19, 2011, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5. 20 Cf. Case of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of December 2, 2003. Considering Clause 12; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment.