2 25. […] pay, within one year, for the costs and expenses arising in the domestic sphere and in the international proceedings before the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the amounts established in paragraph 416 of the [...] judgment, which must be delivered, as applicable, to the Grupo Interdisciplinario de Derechos Humanos and the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, in the terms of paragraphs 416, 417 and 419 to 421 of the […] Judgment. […] 2. The briefs of January 16 and August 27, 2007, November 14, 2008 and April 23, 2009, by means of which the State informed on the status of compliance with the Judgment 3. The briefs of July 4 and 7, 2008, March 11, and May 5 and 12, 2009, by means of which the victims’ representatives (hereinafter, the “representatives”) forwarded their observations in relation to the compliance with the Judgment. 4. The briefs of September 8, 2008 and March 12, 2009 by means of which the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the "Inter-American Commission" or the "Commission") presented the observations to the State's information about the compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of December 9, 2007, by means of which Messr. Joaquin Emilio Gallo Machado requested the Tribunal to clarify “whether the minor Johocio Alexis Beoya García is entitled to the compensation that would have corresponded to his mother [Libia Eugenia García Arboleda, in turn, daughter of Mrs. María Graciela Arboleda Rodríguez]”, in relation to the compliance with the Judgment. 6. The brief of November 26, 2008 by which Messr. Marcelino Barrera Sucerquia and Mrs. Marta Marnely Barrera P. transmitted copies of two “Certification records” and one “Record of Statement”, respectively, addressed to the State, regarding the compensations ordered in their favor in the Judgment 7. The briefs of June 17 and 20, July 14 and 25, August 11 and November 7, 2008 and February 9, 2009 by means of which Mrs. Rosa María Posada George and Messr. Marco Aurelio Aleiza Posada referred to the delivery of the compensations ordered in their favor, as well as the compensation ordered in favor of the minor José Leonel Aleiza Posada. Considering: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter, the “American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 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”. Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level1. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering clause three; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 20, 2009, Considering Clause three.