6 20. That, following instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State on several occasions to submit a report on the progress made regarding compliance with the Judgments delivered in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause 11). 21. That, according to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. Moreover, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The treaty obligation of the States Parties to comply promptly with the Court’s decisions binds all the State’s powers and bodies.5 * * * 22. That, in order to monitor the full compliance with the Judgment delivered in the instant case, it is necessary that the State provide the Court with the information on the following obligations so ordered and that are pending compliance (supra Having Seen clauses 18 and 19): a) payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage; b) annulment of the military proceedings and the effects resulting therefrom; c) payment of pecuniary damages; and d) investigation of the facts surrounding this case and punishment of the perpetrators. 23. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with said Judgment once it has received the corresponding information regarding the matters of reparation pending compliance. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 5 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 7, 2008, Considering clause 3; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 3.