13 obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, given the special nature of international human rights treaties.3 7. States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction have a duty to comply with the obligations decided by the Court. Accordingly, Bolivia must take all measures necessary to effectively comply with what the Court ordered in the Judgment on merits of January 26, 2000 and the judgment on reparations of February 27, 2002 (supra Having Seen 1 and 2), and with the Court’s decision in this Order on the status of compliance with the judgments in question. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted in compliance with what the Court ordered in those decisions. Prompt observance of that State obligation to keep the Court informed of the measures it is taking to comply with each one of the measures of reparation the Court orders is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the case. * * * 8. In monitoring for full compliance with the Judgment on reparations delivered in the instant case, and after examining the information supplied by the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives in their briefs on compliance with the reparations (supra Having Seen 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17), the Court has established that Bolivia has complied with: a) payment of compensation owed to the victim’s mother and siblings for non pecuniary damages (operative paragraph seven and paragraphs 87 to 89 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations); b) payment of the three compensations owed to the victim’s mother for pecuniary damages (operative paragraph eight and paragraphs 73 to 76 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations); c) reimbursement of costs and expenses to the victim’s mother, Mrs. Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero (operative paragraph nine and paragraph 129 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations); d) publication of the January 26, 2000 Judgment on merits in Bolivia’s Official Gazette (operative paragraph four of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations); e) adoption, “in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, […of] those measures for the protection of human rights that ensure the free and full 3 Cf. Matters: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, twelfth considering paragraph; Case of Baena Ricardo et al.. Competence, supra note 1, para. 66; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37. See also, inter alia, “Juvenile Detention Center” Case. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraphs 150 and 151; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Serie C No. 100, para. 142. In this regard, see also Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, ECHR, Series A no. 28, para. 34; and Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch-Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914.