2
e)
the health services provided (operative paragraph three of the reparations
Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001);
f)
the education services provided (operative paragraph four of the reparations
Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001);
g)
the progress in the inclusion of the “legal concept resulting most convenient”
to typify the crime of extrajudicial killings (operative paragraph 5.b of the reparations
Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001);
h)
the memorial monument which must be erected (operative paragraph 5.f of
the reparations Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001); and
e)
the publishing of the complete text of the Judgment on the merits issued by
the Court on March 14, 2001 in the El Peruano Official Gazette and the release of its
content in other means of communication (operative paragraph 5.d of the reparations
Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001).

6.
The briefs of September 30, 2005, of February 2, 3 and 9, 2006 and of
January 11, 2008, by means of which the Peruvian State (hereinafter referred to as
“the State”) provided information on the status of compliance of the reparations
Judgment issued in the instant case.
7.
The communications of August 14 and 24, 2006 and of February 29, 2008, by
means of which the victims representatives (hereinafter referred to as “the
representatives”) submitted their remarks to the reports forwarded by the State
(supra Having Seen clause No. 6).
8.
The briefs of September 15, 2006 and April 1, 2008, by means of which the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the
Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") submitted its remarks to the
reports forwarded by the State (supra Having Seen clause No. 6).
CONSIDERING,
1.
That the monitoring of the compliance of its decisions is an inherent power of
the jurisdictional functions of the Court.
2.
That Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter referred to as “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July
28, 1978, and it acknowledged the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction on January 21,
1981.
3.
That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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.”1
4.
That by virtue of the final and unappealable nature of the Court judgments,
as set forth by Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be immediately
and completely fulfilled by the State.

1
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. C
Series No. 104, par. 60; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment.
Decision by the President dated March 28, 2008, Considering Clause No. three; and Case of Fermín
Ramirez v. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Decision by the President dated March
28, 2008, Considering Clause No. three.

Select target paragraph3