2. The briefs of April 16 and May 7, 2010, and the brief of January 18, 2011 and its annexes, wherein the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or "Peru") presented information on compliance with the Judgment of the Court in the present case (supra Having Seen 1). 3. The briefs of May 27, July 19 and 22, and December 3, 2010, February 10 and 22, and June 3, 2011 and its annexes, wherein the representative of the victims (hereinafter “the representative”) presented comments to the information provided by the State (supra Having Seen 2), as well as additional information on the compliance with the Judgment. 4. The communication of the victims Acevedo León, Beaumont Callirgos and Chamorro Díaz and its annexes, received in April 2010, wherein information was presented on the compliance with the Judgment 5. The brief of June 30, 2010, wherein the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented comments on the information provided by the State and by the representatives (supra Having Seen 2 and 3). 6. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of July 21 and December 10, 2010, wherein, following instructions of the President-in-Office of the Court for the present case, it requested the State to refer in a specific manner to some of the information provided by the representatives of the victims, as well as to the notes of the Secretariat of January 20, February 11 and 28, and June 7, 2011, wherein said request for information from the State was reiterated. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.1 4. In virtue of the definitive and non-appealable nature of the Court's Judgments, according to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with such Judgments. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 16, 2011, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 19, 2011, Considering Clause 5.