34 judgment pending compliance, to urge the State to comply with the Court’s decisions,75 to request detailed information on the measures taken to comply with specific measures of reparation,76 and to provide instructions for compliance, as well as to clarify aspects relating to execution and implementation of the reparations about which there is a dispute between the parties.77 106. This written procedure allows the Courts to monitor compliance with its judgments and guarantees respect for the adversarial principle, since both the State and the Inter-American Commission and the victims or their legal representatives are able to provide the Court with all the information they deem relevant concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. Hence, the Court does not issue an order or, through another act, consider the status of compliance with its judgment without first examining the reports presented by the State and the respective comments forwarded by the Commission and the victims or their legal representatives. However, it should be explained that, although the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment has been developed through this written procedure and a public hearing has never been convened during this stage, if, in the future, the Court considers it appropriate and necessary, it can convene the parties to a public hearing to listen to the arguments on compliance with the judgment.78 There is no provision in the Convention or in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Court that requires the latter to hold public hearings to decide on the merits of a case and order reparations, so it may be inferred that neither is it necessary to hold hearings to consider compliance with judgments, unless the Court considers it essential. 107. Since it issued its first judgments on reparations in 1989, the Court has monitored compliance with the judgments delivered in the contentious cases through this written procedure constantly and without interruption – even in the cases in which the defendant States acknowledged their international responsibility – and, to 75 Cf. inter alia, El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, sixth considering paragraph and second operative paragraph; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002, eighth considering paragraph and second operative paragraph; and Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002, sixth considering paragraph, and first and second operative paragraphs. 76 Cf. inter alia, “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, tenth considering paragraph and second operative paragraph; Barrios Altos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, fifth considering paragraph and first operative paragraph; Neira Alegría et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of November 28, 2002, ninth considering paragraph and second operative paragraph; and Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 4, 2001, having seen paragraphs 5 and 6, and operative paragraphs. 77 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of September 9, 2003, sixth and seventh considering paragraphs and first operative paragraph; Suárez Rosero case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 4, 2001, having seen paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 and operative paragraphs; Durand and Ugarte case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 13, 2002, having seen paragraph 4, second considering paragraph and second operative paragraph; and Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 4, 2001, having seen paragraph 3, second considering paragraph and first operative paragraph. 78 In the El Amparo case, in its Order of November 20, 2000, the Court indicated that “it considered it necessary” to convene the parties to a public hearing on compliance with the judgment. Cf. El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2000, second, fourth and fifth considering paragraphs.