5 on the progress made regarding the mortal rests of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza in order to deliver them to his next of kin; thus, they consider the State has not complied with such obligation. With respect the duty to investigate, identify and, if applicable, punish those responsible of the facts that generated the violations of the case at hand, the representatives repeated that the State has not provided any kind of information about this obligation, "a fact that is a sign of [the State's] non compliance with the order." 12. The brief of February 7, 2007, whereby the Commission submitted the observations to the State's report of December 4, 2006. To such end, the Commission pointed out, in general, that the State has still not submitted enough and detailed information regarding the aspects pending compliance with the Judgments, which shows that the State has still not taken the necessary steps to locate the mortal rests of the victim in order to deliver them to the family neither has it investigate the facts, identify and punish the responsible. With respect to the duty to locate the mortal rests of the victim and deliver them to his next of kin, the Commission stated that, according to the information provided by the State, the Consejo Interinstitucional adopted general measures to learn about the forced disappearances in Bolivia, without specifically referring to the case of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza. Furthermore, it observed that it does not count on information regarding whether the places where the mortal rests of the victim could be buried have been determined and whether there is an excavation plan drawn up. It also stated that it is not aware of the authorities who would be in charge of adopting the measures and the corresponding specific activities organized by the Attorney General of the Republic. As to the duty to investigate, identify and punish the responsible, the Commission repeated that the State must clarify the reasons of the appointment of a civil judge to a criminal case. CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Bolivia has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter, the “American Convention”) since July 19, 1979, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 131; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, 1