7, 2007, that provides for the expedited issuance of Identification Cards for Minors to mothers under 16 years of age. 13. In light of the abovementioned documentation, the Court recalls that in its Order of August 27, 2010, it requested the State to indicate with specification the measures it had implemented subsequent to the Judgment and the manner in which these regulate the procedures for acquiring the nationality of the Dominican Republic upon late registration of birth. For this reason, the first group of documents, corresponding to measures provided prior to the ruling, will not be considered by the Court. In regard to the second group of documents, corresponding to those measures provided subsequent to the issuance of the Judgment and previously submitted to the Court, it was specified by way of the Order of the Court, that these could be relevant in establishing the progress made in compliance with operative paragraph eight. However, the State did not explain the relevance or connection of the documents provided, nor did it heed the Court’s request for information in a timely manner, nor refer to the observations of the representatives, who have mentioned that some of the measures adopted by the State do not facilitate compliance with the Judgment.5 Regarding the third group of documents, forwarded for the first time to the Court, the Court notes that similar to the documents previously provided, the relevance of these documents has not been stated, nor has the State specified in a clear manner how these measures satisfy that ordered in the Judgment, as has been requested repeatedly of the State (supra Having Seen ***). 14. Pertaining to this, the Secretariat required the State, by way of a communication of February 15, 2011, to present a report by March 15, 2011, wherein it would state how the adopted measures comply with that ordered in the Judgment. Moreover, it noted that most of the information forwarded had already been presented to the Court on prior occasions. In response to this communication, on March 15, 2011, the State expressed that in the following days it would provide the Court with the requested information; furthermore, it stressed that it had sent documents related to compliance with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment. Given the abovementioned, the Secretariat, by way of a communication on March 24, 2011, granted the State an additional non-extendable period ending April 23, 2011, in which to present the solicited information. To date, despite the requests made on June 9 and September 12, 2011, the requested information has not been presented. 15. In this matter, the Dominican Republic must adopt all of the necessary provisions to immediately and effectively comply with that ordered by the Court in its Judgment. This obligation includes the duty to report on the measures adopted for compliance with that ordered in the Judgment. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to indicate to the Court how it is complying with each of the requirements ordered is fundamental for the assessment of compliance with the Judgment as a whole, and this obligation is not satisfied with the mere formal presentation of a document, but rather, in order to fully satisfy this obligation effectively, it is required that the State formally present a document in the time frame provided, and that it present material that is specific, clear, current, and detailed, in reference to the matters being requested.6 Moreover, the Court reiterates that in both the proceedings of a contentious case, as well as in the monitoring of compliance, it is not enough 5 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. The Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 27, 2010, Considering clause 24. 6 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of May 1, 2004, Considering clause sixteen; Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 10, 2007, Considering clause five, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause eight. 5