4 human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing the protected rights), but also to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.6 A.1) A simple, quick, and effective recourse for the determination of rights 7. Regarding the obligation established in operative paragraph four of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 5), the State has manifested that “it is complying with the pertinent processes” to comply with the Judgment; it has met with the intervening parties in order to set up a commission that will allow it to comply with the provisions of the Judgment and it has informed the Legislative Branch that said commission must consist of two State representatives (from the Ministry of Justice and the Congress) and a representative of the workers. Regarding the point referring to free legal advise for the victims, the State informed that the General Board of Public Defense designated public defenders for the legal support of the 257 victims, stating that it named 10 public defenders that will work for free, in accordance with that provided for in paragraph 149 of the Judgment. The State informed, additionally, that the new Special Commission 7 has exercised its functions since July 16, 2010, and it strives to “guarantee the 257 victims of the case with access to a simple, fast and efficient recourse.” According to the State, said Commission is “built based on the precepts that were set forth in the Order to Monitor [Compliance]” on November 20, 2009, issued in the present case. The State also manifested that once the Special Commission was set up on August 23, 2010, it requested the Ministry of Justice to ratify and acknowledge that the Commission would consist of delegates from the Congress of the Republic, the Ministry of Justice, delegates of the victims and a President. In accordance with the State’s provisions, the Special Commission has 90 calendar days to issue a Final Report, which finished on November 23, 20108, the State, however, has not informed the Tribunal of this effect. Prior to setting up the Special Commission, the State requested the current addresses of the 257 victims from the National Registry of Identification and Civil Status in order to notify all the victims of said acts and to guarantee due process. The State indicated that on October 5 and 29, 2010, it carried out public hearings whereby victims were granted the opportunity to make statements, in a voluntary manner. According to reports, 69 of the victims included in the Judgment requested to make a statement in order to put forward their claims before said “Special Commission.9 The State indicated that said hearings were being registered in order to submit them to this Tribunal at a later date. Also, the State added that the Special Commission has seen the need to open a new date to hold another public hearing, with an “open date,” to “make it possible to listen to all the victims that have not been able to make statements and that desire to express […] alternative solutions to their particular cases.” 8. The common interveners manifested that in March 2010 they rejected the proposal made by the Specialized Supra-National Public Prosecutor to the Ministry of Justice to create a “Special Commission” composed of three members as it did not follow the rulings 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999, paragraph 37; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment. supra note 5, Considering Clause six, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment, supra note 5,, Considering Clause six. 7 The Special Commission referred to is presided over by Mr. Carlos Blancas Bustamente, elected on July 26, 2010, during the meeting of the Special Commission that took place in the offices of the Super-National Attorney General’s Office. See: Annex 13 of the brief of the State of November 9, 2010 (case file of monitoring of compliance, pages xxx). 8 Cf. Annex 14 of the brief presented by the State on November 9, 2010 (case file of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, pages xx). 9 Cf. Annexes 17 and 18 of the brief presented by the State on November 9, 2010, which contained lists of the persons that requested use of the floor during the private hearings called by the “Special Commission” (case file of monitoring of compliance, pages xx).