2 c) payment of the corresponding amounts for the reimbursement of the incurred expenses and costs in the instant case. 2. That it shall continue to monitor the compliance of the operative paragraph still pending in the instant case, to wit: “the State must effectively investigate the facts in the instant case, that caused the violations to the American Convention on Human Rights and the failure to comply the obligations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; to identify, judge, and punish the responsible parties, as well as to publish the results of the respective investigation (fifth operative paragraph of the Judgment on Merits and Reparation emitted in the instant case). 3. The Order emitted by the Inter-American Court on November 21, 2007, through which it decided: 1. To call upon the State of Guatemala to comply as soon as possible with the pending operative paragraph of the Judgment […] in accordance with Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 4. The briefs of April 29 and October 14, 2008, through which the State informed about the status of fulfillment of the Sentence emitted in this case. 5. The briefs of June 12 and December 2, 2008, through which the legal representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations towards the State reports (supra Having Seen 4). 6. The brief of June 20, 2008, through which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations towards the State reports (supra Having Seen 4). CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent power towards the judicial functions of the Court to monitor the compliance of its decisions. 2. That Guatemala is State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978 and it recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That in accordance with what is established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court must be complied forthwith by the State entirely.1 Moreover, Article 68(1) of the American Convention provides that “[t]he States Party in the Convention compromise to the compliance of the judgment in such event where they are parties”. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgement. Order of November 24, 2008, Considering clause 4; and, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 26, 2008. Considering clause 4.