4 reiterated that, with the objective of allowing the Tribunal to fully comply with the obligation to inform it of the compliance with its judgments, it is necessary that the State Parties provide the information required by said Tribunal in a timely manner.5 6. That through notes sent by the Secretariat of the Court, following the President’s instructions, reiterated on several occasions (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), the State was reminded of its obligation to inform of the measures adopted to comply with the Judgment. 7. That pursuant to that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court must be complied with promptly by the State in their totality. Likewise, Article 68(1) of the American Convention states 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.” The conventional obligation of the States Parties to comply promptly with the decisions of the Court falls upon all the State’s powers and bodies.6 8. That without the due information from the State, this Court cannot exercise its duty to monitor the execution of the judgments issued. That in order to ensure and guarantee the application of the protection and reparation measures issued, the Court must be able to verify and have information regarding the execution of the Judgment, which is “the materialization of the protection of the right acknowledged in the judicial ruling through the correct application of said ruling.”7 9. That the Peruvian State has not informed of compliance with the Judgment and, therefore, it has failed to comply with its conventional obligation. * * * 10. That when monitoring full compliance of the Judgment issued in this case, the Court considers it necessary that the State present the information regarding all the orders stated in the Judgment of November 22, 2005 on merits, reparations, and costs in the present case (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). 11. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with said Judgment once it receives the corresponding information regarding the matters of reparation pending compliance. 5 General Assemble, Ruling AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) approved in the fourth regular meeting, held on June 5, 2007, called “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 6 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering clause number three. 7 73. Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para