-5way that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.8 8. The State Parties to the Convention that have also recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court about the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in said decisions. The prompt compliance by the State with its obligation to update the Court on the steps it has taken to comply with each of the orders made by the Court is fundamental to the evaluation of the status of compliance with the Judgment.9 Moreover, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated that, in order to enable the Court to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, it is necessary for the State Parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court.10 9. The duty to inform the Court about the compliance with its Judgment constitutes an obligation that requires, in order to be fully complied, the formal submission of a document within the term set as well as the specific, true, current and detailed material reference to the issues that fall within the scope of said obligation.11 10. In its Judgment the Court ordered the State to submit a report on the measures taken in order to comply with said Judgment, within one year from its notification (supra Having Seen 1). Despite the fact that after said term had elapsed, the Secretariat, on three occasions and following instructions from the President, required the State to submit said report (supra Having Seen 3, 4 and 5), it has not been presented so far. 11. Since said report from the State on the measures taken in compliance with the Judgment has not been received, this Court has been unable to exercise its monitoring function regarding the implementation of its judgments. Therefore, the State has not complied with its treaty obligation. 12. There has been a lack of participation and collaboration from the State since the instant case was brought before the Court. In this regard, the Court has deemed that the State’s inactivity before an international human rights jurisdiction, or its lack of 8 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering paragraph fourth, and García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. supra note 5, Considering paragraph seventh. 9 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph seventh; Case of Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. supra note 9, Considering paragraph fifth, and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. supra note 5, Considering paragraph eighth. 10 Cf. Organization of American States General Assembly, “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session, June 5, 2007. 11 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering paragraph twelfth; Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering paragraph eighth, and Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering paragraph fifth.