there has been no progress in the implementation of this measure of reparation. As such, the Court stresses the importance of compliance with this measure, because it implies that there will be a moral satisfaction for the victims and closes the mourning process they have been living for years. 11 11. As a consequence, the State must adopt the necessary measures in an immediate manner to determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, the only measure in the Judgments on the merits and reparations that is pending compliance. In order for the Court to determine compliance with this measure of reparation, the State must present detailed, complete and updated information, together with the supporting documentation, on: a) the judicial and administrative actions, as well as other actions, carried out in attempts at finding the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez that are in addition to those that have already been reported during the proceeding on monitoring compliance with the Judgments ordered in this case; b) the investigations and procedures carried out given the information received on the alleged elimination of the remains of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, provided in the processing of the merits before this Court, and c) the actions and procedures carried out regarding those that were processed and convicted for the facts of the case in order to determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. b) Obligation of the State to report on measures adopted to comply with the Judgments on the merits and reparations 12. Pursuant to the operative paragraph two of the Order of the Court of April 3, 2009 (supra Having Seen clause 2), the State was supposed to present, by no later than July 15, 2009, a brief that indicated “all the judicial and administrative, as well as other actions, taken by the authorities in attempts at determining the whereabouts of Ernesto Castillo Páez”. By way of a brief of June 29, 2009, the State referred to the “[o]bligation to investigate, prosecute, and judge those responsible for the violations committed in [this] [c]ase.” Notwithstanding, given that this brief “did not contain information required by the Court,” three more requests for this brief were made to Peru. This brief was never provided. 12 As a consequence, by way of the Order of the Court of May 19, 2011, a request was made for the State to present a brief, by no later than July 15, 2011. The last communication made by the State to this Court was on August 4, 2011, nevertheless, it did not provide information on the measures adopted to determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. Subsequently, on five occasions, the Court reiterated requests for the presentation of information from the State and it granted various periods for this (supra Having Seen clause 4 and 6). Nevertheless, Peru has not presented the required information on the judicial and administrative actions, or other type of actions, taken by authorities in attempts at determining the whereabouts of Ernesto Castillo Páez. In light of the aforementioned, the Court considers it relevant to refer to the State’s failure to comply with the obligation to inform the Court on compliance with the Judgment. 13. The Court considers it necessary to highlight and recall, just as it has done on previous occasions, 13 that the timely fulfillment of the State's obligation to report to the Cf. Case of The Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2013, Considering clause nineteen. 11 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Having seen clauses four and five, and Considering clause eleven. 12 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause seven and eight, and Case of Castillo Páez V. 13 5