6 2. When it deems it appropriate, the Court may convene the State and the victims' representatives to a hearing to monitor compliance with its decisions; the Court shall hear the opinion of the Commission at that hearing. 3. Once the Tribunal has all the relevant information, it shall determine the state of compliance with its decisions and issue the orders that it deems appropriate. 10. The original deadline for the State to submit the first report on the state of compliance with the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment expired on June 20, 2008, i.e., more than two years ago. Subsequently, through the Order of April 28, 2009 (supra Having Seen 3) the State was granted a new deadline of June 1, 2009, i.e., over more a year ago. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on August 3, 2010 (supra Having Seen 9) Peru is yet to submit its first report on the state of compliance with the Judgment, and thus was given a new non-extendable deadline until October 3, 2010. 11. In response to this last request, on October 6, 2010 the State submitted a report with "the purpose of informing [the Court] on steps tak[en] by [the State Agents] with regard to compliance with the Judgment." In this sense, Peru reported, among other actions, on the submission of an official letter by said state authority to: the Directorate General of the Administration Office, requesting publication of the Judgment; the Prosecutor General, requesting information on investigations in this case; and, the Council of Legal Defense of the State, requesting that it clarify which party is responsible for compliance with the Judgment. Furthermore, it indicated that in its response to the respective official letter, the Prosecutor General had indicated that the corresponding "proceeding [...] was [being] [e]xecuted, pending an expert witness testimony" and that it "ha[d] requested that the Ministry of Justice pay the pecuniary damages awarded in [the] [J]udgment." 12. In its comments on the State report, the common intervener stated that said brief "does not consist [...] of a [r]eport in which, measure by measure, details are given of how [the State], has complied [...] with the various measures ordered by the Court." It reiterated that the State had not complied with any of the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment and requested that the Court report to the OAS General Assembly on the breach of the Judgment by the State, in accordance with Article 65 the American Convention. 13. For its part, the Inter-American Commission notes with concern that, based on the information provided, "four years after the [J]udgment [...] the State has not complied with any of the measures ordered by the Court therein" and requested the Court "to issu[e] an order that clearly defin[es] the outstanding international obligations for Peru," in connection with this case. 14. The President-in-Office noted that the letter submitted by the State on October 6, 2010 does not include specific information about the actions or measures actually taken by the State, whatever the body or instance may have been, to effectively comply with each of the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment. 15. On several occasions the Secretariat of the Court, following instructions from the Presidency or the Court (supra Having Seen 6 and 9) has reminded the State that its first report, on the state of compliance of measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment, is yet to be submitted. 16. The State has had an adequate and reasonable time to comply with its obligation to prepare and submit the first complete report on compliance ordered in the Judgment,