4 9. The communication of October 6, 2010, in which the representatives “observe[d] that Suriname has repeatedly failed to comply with the orders of the Court requesting information about [the] implementation of the [J]udgment” and submitted various requests to the Tribunal. 10. The Secretariat's note of June 14, 2011, in which the parties were asked to submit, no later than July 15, 2011, observations to the briefs submitted by the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives on September 20, 2010, respectively, and the brief submitted by the representatives on October 6, 2010 (supra Having Seen clauses 8 and 9). Through the Secretariat's note of July 8, 2011, the State was granted an extension of time expiring on August 1, 2011, for the submission of its observations. 11. The briefs of July 15 and 19, 2011, whereby the representatives and the Commission, respectively, submitted their observations to the parties' briefs of September 20, 2010 (supra Having Seen clause 8). 12. The communication of July 29, 2011, whereby the State submitted information requested through the Secretariat's notes of September 14 and 29, 2010 (supra Having Seen clause 7). 13. The briefs of August 26 and October 3, 2011, whereby the representatives and the Commission submitted their observations to the State's brief of July 29, 2011, respectively (supra Having Seen clause 12). Through the Secretariat's notes of September 7 and 14 and November 8, 2011, the State was asked to submit its observations to the briefs of September 20, 2010, submitted by the representatives and the Commission, respectively, and to the representatives' communication of October 6, 2010 (supra Having Seen clauses 8 and 9), as soon as possible. At the time this Order was approved, the State had not submitted the observations requested. 14. The communication of September 30, 2011, in which the representatives of the victims “entreat[ed] the Court to [issue] an Order” during its 44th Extraordinary Period of Sessions, held at Bridgetown, Barbados, from October 10 to 14, 2011, and informed the Tribunal of statements allegedly made by the State “before the [United Nations] Human Rights Council during the Universal [Periodic] Review.” Through its note of October 6, 2011, the Secretariat requested that the State and the Inter-American Commission submit observations to the representatives' brief by October 17, 2011, at the latest. Through the Secretariat's note of October 21, 2011, the Commission was granted an extension of time until October 31, 2011, in order to do so, and it submitted its observations on this latter date. At the time this Order was approved, the State had not submitted the observations requested. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Suriname became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on November 12, 1987. 3. Given that in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, the State must fully and promptly comply therewith. Additionally, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Convention, “The State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which