on the said State’s report (supra having seen paragraph 2) had expired and requiring him to present these observations as soon as possible. 5. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of September 27, 2017, through which, on the instructions of the Presidency of the Court, the State was asked to submit documentation that would allow the Court to verify the assertions made in its May 2015 report regarding compliance with the reparations ordered in the Judgment (infra considerandum 3), as well as the note of the Secretariat of the Court of August 23, 2018, reiterating this request to the State. 6. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of October 8, 2019, through which the State was informed that, during the 131th Regular Session, the Court was informed that, up to that date, the State had not submitted the report required by said note of the Secretariat of September 2017 (supra having seen paragraph 5). In said note, following the instructions of the Plenary of the Court, said request was reiterated. 7. The reports presented by the State between December 2019 and January 2020, in response to the requests made by the Court and its Presidency through the notes of the Secretariat of the Court (supra having seen paragraphs 5 and 6). These reports contained, inter alia, a statement made by the victim regarding compliance with the Judgment (infra considerandum 3). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. In the exercise of its jurisdictional function of monitoring compliance with its decisions,4 the Court has been monitoring compliance with the execution of the Judgment delivered in this case in 2014 (supra having seen paragraph 1). In this ruling, the Court ordered three reparation measures: (i) publish and disseminate the Judgment and its official summary; (ii) pay the victim the compensation for nonpecuniary damage, and (iii) reimburse costs and expenses (infra consideranda 4 and 7). 2. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the steps taken to comply with each measure ordered, which is essential in order to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole .5 The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention and their practical effects (effet utile) in their respective domestic laws. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the guaranteed protection is truly practical and effective, recalling the special nature of human rights treaties. 6 3. In its report of May 2015, the State asserted that the payment of the amounts ordered in the Judgment had been made and that Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux “ha[d] indicated not to attach further interest in the implementation” of the other measures ordered in the Judgment. Even though the victim’s representative has repeatedly been asked to 4 A prerogative that also arises from the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 30 of the Court’s Statute, and that is regulated in Article 69 of its Rules of Procedure. 5 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, considerandum 5, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (in Vitro Fertilization) and Case of Gómez Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2019, considerandum 2. 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Serie C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (in Vitro Fertilization) and Case of Gómez Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica, supra note 5, considerandum 2. -2-