-6- (f) Regarding the medical and psychological treatment for the victims’ next of kin, it “regret[ted] that there has been no significant progress in compliance with this important obligation,” and stated that “the nature of the damage to be repaired by this means is incompatible with the degree of progress revealed in the State’s report”; (g) Regarding the obligation to trace the next of kin of three of the victims, it observed that “the State d[id] not report” on the measures it had adopted to locate the next of kin of two of the victims, whose whereabouts remain unknown; (h) Regarding the payment of the compensation ordered for the victims’ next of kin, it noted that “the injured parties confirm that 90% of the compensation has been paid,” and that the State is “making every effort to resolve some problems” concerning the payment of the remaining 10%. (i) Regarding the setting up of bank investments in favor of the beneficiaries who are minors, it indicated that the State had made no mention of this in its report; and (j) Regarding the payment of costs and expenses, it indicated that “the State had indicated that [this] had been made on April 7, 2006.” 8. The briefs of August 11 and September 26, 2006, in which the representatives submitted a copy of communications they had sent to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Social Security in relation to the reparation concerning medical and psychological treatment for the victims’ next of kin. 9. The brief of July 3, 2007, and its appendix, in which the Colombian Commission of Jurists consulted the Court about “the payment of the compensation ordered in favor of Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya, brother of the victim, R[U]BEN EMILIO PINEDA BEDOYA,” who is a beneficiary of compensation ordered by the Court in its judgment. The representatives indicated that Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya had died on November 15, 2005, after the judgment had been delivered, and that the compensation that corresponded to him “had already been delivered by the Colombian State to the Colombian Commission of Jurists for it to make the corresponding payment.” The representatives stated that, according to paragraphs 230 and 231 of the judgment, they considered that “if any beneficiary of the compensation was deceased at the time of the judgment, it was understood that his share would be distributed among the other beneficiaries in the same category[; i]n this case, among the siblings.” The representatives asked about “the appropriate interpretation of the judgment in relation to the distribution of the compensation ordered in favor of Jorge Enrique Pineda Bedoya,” and “whether it increased the compensation to his siblings, as established in paragraph 231 of the judgment, or whether it should be distributed among his successors, which would correspond to those who prove that they are his children.” CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on June 21, 1985.