3 11. The private hearing on monitoring compliance with the judgment held on February 25, 2011, during the Court’s ninetieth regular session.2 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.3 4. In view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. Article 69 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure4 stipulate that: 1. The procedure for monitoring compliance with the judgments and other decisions of the Court shall be carried out through the submission of reports by the State and observations to those reports by the victims or their legal representatives. The Commission shall present observations to the State’s reports and to the observations of the victims or their representatives. 2. The Court may require from other sources of information relevant data regarding the case in order to evaluate compliance therewith. To that end, the Tribunal may also request the expert opinions or reports that it considers appropriate. 2 The following persons appeared at this hearing: (a) for the State: Francisco Javier Echeverri Lara, Director of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Juan Carlos Forero Ramírez, Assistant Prosecutor General; Hernán Jaime Ulloa Venegas, Director of the President’s Human Rights Program; Gloria Beatriz Gaviria Ramos, Head of the Office of Cooperation and International Relations of the Social Protection Ministry; Alex de Jesús Salgado Lozano, Director of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Defense; Elena Ambrosi Turbay, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Defense; Hernando Castañeda Ariza, Head of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian law Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office; Jorge Alexander Vargas Mesa, Executive Director of the Housing Nationalization Fund; César Vegara Gutiérrez, Adviser to the Sub-Directorate for Attention to the Displaced PopulationSocial Action; Paulina Gómez Borda, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., of the Embassy of Colombia in Costa Rica; Felipe Medina Ardila, Coordinator of the Inter-institutional Operational Group; Claudia Paola Redondo Polo, Adviser to the Inter-institutional Operational Group; Orlando Páez Barón, Inspector General of the National Police; John Henry Arango Alzáte, Coordinator of the Human Rights Group of the National Police, and Daniel Vásquez Franco, Director of the Housing System of the Vice Ministry of Housing and Territorial Development. In addition, there appeared: (b) for the Inter-American Commission: Lilly Ching Soto, adviser, and (c) for the representatives: John Arturo Cárdenas Mesa, Juliana Bravo Valencia, Erick Benjamín Aldana Mendoza and María Victoria Fallon Morales, of the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos (GIDH). 3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C. No. 104, para. 131; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, third considering paragraph, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, third considering paragraph. 4 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eight-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009.