2
c)
to carry out a public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility by
the State, pursuant to Having Seen Clauses 14 to 17 of […] Order (operative paragraph
ten of the Judgment;)
d)
to place a plaque with the name of the victims in the street that has been
named in their memory, pursuant to Having Seen Clauses 18 to 21 of […] Order
(operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment;)
e)
to establish a training program for police and judicial personnel as well as for
the Public Prosecutor’s Office and Penitentiary personnel regarding the protection of
children and youngsters; about the principle of equality before the law and about the
international standards in human rights and judicial guarantees afforded to detainees,
pursuant to Having Seen Clauses 22 to 25 of […] Order (operative paragraph twelve of
the Judgment;)
f)
to carry out a campaign to sensitize the Honduran society regarding the
importance of the protection of children and youngsters, to inform about the specific
duties for their protection that correspond to the family, society and the State, and to
show the population that children and youngsters in risky situations are not associated
to delinquency, pursuant to Having Seen Clauses 26 to 29 of […] Order (operative
paragraph thirteen of the Judgment;) and
h)
to create a unified database among all institutions involved in the investigation,
identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent death of children and
youngsters in risky situations, pursuant to Having Seen Clauses 30 to 33 of […] Order
(operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment.)

[…]
3.
The report of the State of Honduras (hereinafter, the “State”), submitted on May 19,
2008, in relation to the progress made in the compliance with the Judgment.
4.
The observations of the victims’ representatives (hereinafter, the “representatives")
regarding the State’s report submitted on June 24, 2008.
5.
The observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter,
the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) regarding the State’s report
submitted on July 9, 2008.
CONSIDERING:
1.
It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance
with its decisions.
2.
That Honduras has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter, the “Convention" or the "American Convention”) since September 8, 1977, and
that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981.
3.
That article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that ““[t]he States Parties to
the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which
they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions
of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1

1

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No.
104, para. 131; Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008; Considering Clause three and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo)

Select target paragraph3