3 provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 6. In accordance with the Court’s Order (supra Having Seen 2), the State had to present a report on March 19, 2010 on all the measures adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by this Court that are pending compliance. However, despite the requests made (supra Having Seen 3), and one year and five months after the deadline, the State has failed to present information related to compliance with said Judgment. In consequence, the Tribunal does not have information on all of the aspects pending compliance. 7. The Court recalls that, on occasion of the proceeding related to preliminary objections, merits, reparations and legal costs of the instant case, more than five years ago, the State widely acknowledged its responsibility,5 which should translate into a prompt and effective compliance with the orders given by the Tribunal as reparation measures. The State must be consistent with the acknowledgment it made, and it is imperative -considering this acknowledgment, the Judgment of the Court and, above all, the respect and guarantee obligations which it agreed to through a sovereign decision when it ratified the American Convention- that there are no states of affairs that are incompatible with the Convention. That is, the State must be consistent with its acknowledgment and, therefore, with its international obligations, and must comply with the Judgment delivered against it, providing redress for the victims which is proportional to the damage caused and by adopting all the measures that are necessary so that similar facts are not repeated. It is worth emphasizing that, in addition, the initial reparative value that an acknowledgment may have for the victims and their next-of-kin fades as time goes by if the State authorities fail to take action and do not repair the damage caused.6 8. To this end, Venezuela must adopt all the measures necessary to effectively comply with what was ordered by the Court in the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1). This includes the State's obligation to report on measures taken to comply with the Court's orders. The Tribunal deems it is necessary to emphasize and recall that 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 points ordered by the latter is essential in order to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole, and simply formally presenting a document is not enough to fulfill this obligation. Moreover, the obligation to provide information is a two-fold obligation which calls for the formal submission of a document 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the "Las Dos Erres Massacre" v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5. 5 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 150, para. 57 and 58. 6 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering Clause 18; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 16, 2011, Considering Clause 11, and Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause 4.