4 and applied in a manner that ensures that the right protected is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. The States Party to the Convention that have accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to obey the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, Peru must take such steps as may be necessary to comply with the orders issued by the Court in the January 31, 2001 Judgment (supra Having Seen 1). 8. In the process of overseeing comprehensive compliance with the January 31, 2001 Judgment, and after analyzing the documents supplied by the State, by the representatives of the victim and by the Commission in their briefs on compliance with reparations (supra Having Seen 3, 5 and 6), the Court notes that it does not have sufficient information on the following points currently pending compliance: f) The current status of the investigations to identify and punish the persons responsible for the human rights violations committed against the victims in the case (operative paragraph four of the January 31, 2001 Judgment); and g) Payment of the back pay and other benefits due, according to domestic legislation, to Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano (operative paragraph five of the January 31, 2001 Judgment). 9. This Court has asserted that the State that is found responsible and is in arrears regarding payment of the compensation ordered by the Court must pay interest on the amount owed.4 It is an obligation of the State found responsible to pay the compensation ordered by the Court within the term set for this purpose, and non-compliance with this obligation entails consequences for the State. When it pays after the deadline, the State incurs the obligation to pay interest on the amount owed, so as to maintain the value of the compensation and ensure that that said amounts retain their purchasing power. The Court has declared that the States have said obligation to pay interest even when the judgment in which the Court ordered the reparations did not explicitly state said obligation.5 3 See Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. May 4, 2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Whereas twelve; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence, supra note 1, para. 66; Case of Constantine et al.. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 82, para. 74; Case of Benjamin et al.. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 81, para. 74; Case of Hilaire. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 80, para. 83; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 54, para. 37. Also see, inter alia, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation of Institute”. September 2, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. July 8, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 110, paras. 150 and 151; and Case of Bulacio. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, para. 142. Likewise, see 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. 4 See Case of Tibi. September 7, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 114, para. 278; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 338; and Case of Ricardo Canese. August 31, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 111, para. 221. 5 See Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Compliance with Judgment. November 22, 2002 Order of the Court, Whereas 12; Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Interpretation of the Judgment on Compensation (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). August 17, 1990 Judgment. Series C No. 9, para. 40,