-6collaboration with it, is contrary to the object, purpose, and spirit of the American Convention and to the collective security mechanism set forth therein.12 13. The Court shall continue to consider the general state of compliance with the Judgment of March 11, 2005. NOW THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, By virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 67, 68(1) and 78(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 25(1) of the Statute of the Court and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That, in accordance with the considerations found in Whereas clauses 9 to 13, the State has not complied with its obligation to inform the Court about the steps taken in order to comply with the Judgment of March 11, 2005. 2. That the State cannot elude its obligations set forth in the Judgment issued by the Court on March 11, 2005, despite having denounced the Convention. Therefore, the State shall effectively comply with said Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 68(1) and 78(2) of the American Convention. 3. That the Court will continue to monitor compliance with all the reparations ordered by this Court in said Judgment. AND DECIDES: 1. To require the State to take such necessary measures to effectively and promptly comply with the Judgment delivered by the Court on March 11, 2005, according to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To require the State to submit to the Court, no later than March 8, 2008, a detailed report on the measures taken in order to comply with the reparations ordered by this Court. 3. To require that the Secretariat notify the instant Order to the State, to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and to the representatives of Winston Caesar. Sergio García Ramírez President 12 Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 1, para. 38.