4 pertaining to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be construed and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking into account the special nature of the human rights treaties.4 7. That when monitoring compliance with Judgment, it befalls the Tribunal to verify whether the State responsible abides by the obligations imposed upon it in the Judgment. The duty to abide by the obligations imposed upon the State by the Tribunal in the Judgment includes the obligation to inform the Court of the measures it has taken to comply with its orders. For such purpose, the Court must receive the necessary information, which the State, the Commission and the victims or their representatives must provide. Along such lines, the General Assembly of the OAS has reiterated that, in order for the Tribunal to be able to comply fully with the obligation of informing it of compliance with its judgments, it is necessary that the States Parties deliver the information required by it from them in a timely manner.5 Timely fulfillment of the obligation the State has to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the points ordered by the latter is essential for it go be able to assess the status of compliance in this case. 8. That in the instant case, the Tribunal monitors compliance with the Judgment on the basis of the information provided by the State, the representatives and the Commission in the course of the hearing and in the various briefs on record in the case file. * * * Duty to carry out investigations in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction 9. That as regards the duty to immediately carry out the necessary actions and use all available means to render effective the investigation and proceedings in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the events (operative paragraph number six in the Judgment), the State reported that on October 9, 2007 a complaint was filed before the Ministro Fiscal General del Estado [General Prosecuting Minister of State], so that a preliminary enquiry be commenced in order to discover, prosecute and punish the perpetrators, accomplices and aiders and abettors responsible for the extrajudicial execution of the victims in the instant case. Likewise, the State indicated that administrative proceedings were instituted before the Consejo Nacional de la Judicatura [National Council for the Bench] against the Juez Noveno de lo Penal del Guayas [Criminal Judge Number Nine in and for Guayas], for the disappearance of the court case file on the instant case and the subsequent declaration that the statute of limitations had operated. In its last brief, the State went no further than to inform about official letters and communications addressed to the Fiscal General [Prosecutor General], to the Presidente de la Corte Nacional de Justicia [President of the National Court of Justice] of Ecuador and to the Consejo Nacional de la Judicatura [National Council for the Bench] requesting information about the 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Six, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Six. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2408 (XXXVIII-O/08) adopted at its fourth full meeting, held on June 3, 2008, and titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights.”