11 recording the delivery of a cheque to the legal representatives of the Awas Tingni Community (supra Having seen paragraph 4), corresponding to the payment made by the State to the Inter-American Commission, in compliance with the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment. 42. That the representatives indicated in their observations of November 17, 2004, that “Nicaragua complied with the [seventh] operative paragraph [of the Judgment] on April 16, 2002, when it delivered a check […] for legal costs to the Community through the Inter-American Commission […].” 43. That, based on the statements of the parties during the private hearing on compliance held on May 3, 2008, the Court observes that there is no dispute regarding the status of compliance with this operative paragraph. 44. That the Court considers that the State has fully complied with the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment. * * * 45. That regarding the “requests for additional reparations” and the “supplementary request for additional reparations” (supra Having seen paragraph 3), the representatives asked the Court to “demand” that the State assume responsibility for failing to comply with the Judgment of the Court of August 31, 2001, and “consequently, to order Nicaragua to compensate the Community for the damage it has suffered and continues to suffer owing to the State’s failure to comply with […] the Court’s rulings,” and also to pay costs and expenses. In this regard, they indicated that the Court has the powers to require that its decisions are complied with and this power “includes the power to require additional reparations for the damage arising from the State’s failure to comply with the Court’s rulings.” 46. That, given the allegations of the representatives and based on the Court’s case law, at this stage of monitoring compliance, the Court is empowered to give instructions at the request of a party or motu propio relating to compliance with or implementation of the measures of reparation ordered in its Judgment delivered on August 31, 2001, so that the operative paragraphs of this Judgment are complied with. Nevertheless, this does not imply that it can order measures of reparation that differ from those it has already ordered so as to modify the Judgment. The Court also observes that, even though the representatives can submit their requests, arguments and evidence autonomously throughout the proceedings (as established in Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure), in this case the Court is unable to rule on new facts and claims that are not part of the measures of reparation that have already been ordered. Consequently, the Court rejects as inadmissible the requests for additional reparations submitted by the representatives in this case. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions and in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure,