10 concludes that Chile has complied with the provisions of operative paragraph eight of the Judgment. V. In relation to the obligation to inform the Court of compliance with the Judgment 31. To monitor the total compliance with the Judgment issued in this case, the Court has reviewed the information provided by the State in their reports and the Inter-American Commission in its observations on the reports. However, the Court notes that on September 23, 2009, following instructions of the President of the Court, the State was requested to submit a further report on compliance with the Judgment, which was not presented until August 23, 2010, almost a year after it was requested (supra Having Seen 6 and 9). 32. The Court reminded that the obligation to respect the rulings of the Court includes the State's duty to inform the Court about the measures taken to comply with the Court's provisions in aforementioned Judgment. The obligation to inform the Court about compliance with the Judgment requires, for its effective implementation, the formal presentation of a document, within time limits, as well as specific, accurate, up-to-date and detailed reference material on the issues related to the obligation.17 Timely fulfillment of the State's obligation to advise the Court how it is complying with each of the reparations it ordered is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment.18 33. The Court also highlights the particular importance of the observations of the Commission and the representatives of the victims in order to assess the implementation, by the State, of the measures to comply with the Judgment.19 Consequently, for proper and complete assessment of compliance with the Judgment it is essential that the representative present observations without any delay (supra Having Seen 4 and 10) —as seen in this proceeding— on the information provided by the State and requested by this Court regarding compliance with the reparations measures ordered. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercising its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions in accordance with Articles 33, 61(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 25(1) and 30 of the Statue, and Article 31 and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 17 Cf. Case of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of December 2, 2003. Considering Clause twelve; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Surinam. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of December 18, 2009, Considering Clause ten, and Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause twenty-one. 18 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering Clause seven; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause seven, and Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 26, 2010, Considering Clause five. 19 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 2, 2006, Considering Clause ten.