-7principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the rights thereby protected) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That those States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That, in monitoring comprehensive compliance with the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs delivered in the instant case, and after having analyzed the information supplied by the State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims’ representatives in their briefs on compliance with reparations (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2, 4, 5, and 6), the Court has verified which aspects of such Judgment have been fully and partially complied with by Nicaragua, and which reparations are still pending compliance. 9. That the Court has verified that the State has complied with its obligation to: a) Publish section VII (Proven Facts), paragraphs 153, 154, 157 to 160, 162, 164, 173, 175, 176, 212, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, 226 and 227, from sections IX and X, dealing with the violations found by the Court, and the operative paragraphs of the Judgment at least once in the Official Gazette and in another large nation-wide circulation newspaper (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment of June 23, 2005). Based on the documents submitted by the State, the Court has verified that the aforementioned portions of the Judgment were published in the La Gaceta Official Gazette on December 12, 13 and 14, 2005, and in the “El Nuevo Diario” newspaper on July 22, 2006. Furthermore, the State, as well as the representatives and the Commission, have all stated that such portions of the Judgment were also published in the La Prensa newspaper; b) Publish the full text of the Judgment on the State’s official web site (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment of June 23, 2005). The Court has verified that the “Other issues of interest” section of said web page features a direct link to the full text of the Judgment. 10. That the Court has verified that Nicaragua has partially complied with its duty to publicize, via broadcast by a radio station with a large coverage area in the Atlantic Coast, the required paragraphs of section VII (Proven Facts) and of sections IX and X, 3 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 8; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.