5 on protected rights), but also in relation to procedural rules such as those that refer to compliance with orders of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the guarantee being thus protected be actually practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. In this sense, the State must inform about measures adopted towards compliance with the orders contained in decisions of the Court. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court on how it is complying with each of its orders is basic to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That in supervising overall compliance with the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs delivered in the instant case, and after analysing the information provided by the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin in their briefs on compliance with reparations (supra Having seen 3, 5 y 6), the Court has corroborated that the State has complied with the requirement in operative paragraph six of said Judgment (supra Having seen 1), as to publication of Chapter VI and the operative part of the Judgment in the official gazette. 9. That it has been likewise corroborated that the State has paid compensation for material damages, immaterial damages and costs and expenditures as ordered by the Court in conformity with operative paragraphs seven to thirteen of the Judgment delivered on September 18, 2003 (supra Having seen 1). 10. That after having analysed the documents submitted by the State, the InterAmerican Commission, and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, the Court warns that it does not have sufficient information on the following aspects of the case not yet complied with: a) b) 3 investigation of all the facts in the case and punishment of those responsible, with full access and capacity to act for the next of kin of the victim, the results of which must be publicly disseminated (operative paragraph four of the September 18, 2003, Judgment); and process of adoption of legislative and any other measures required to adjust the domestic legislation to international human rights rules and to make them fully effective, in assurance that facts such as those Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 1, para. 66; Case of Constantine et al.. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 01, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 74; Case of Benjamin et al.. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, para. 74; Case of Hilaire. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 83; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37. Likewise, cf., inter alia, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institution.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraphs 150 and 151; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 142. In this same sense, cf. E. Court H.R., Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, para. 34; and Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch-Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914.