3 3. The briefs of September 14 and December 7, 2007, whereby the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) referred to compliance with the Judgment. 4. The briefs of August 14, September 4 and 5, and October 15, 2007; April 3, July 30, October 24, and November 6, 2008; whereby the common intervener of the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the common intervener”) referred to compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of August 3 and September 18, 2007; October 10, 2008; January 15, and February 25, 2009; whereby the Republic of Perú (hereinafter “Perú” or “the State”) referred to compliance with the Judgment. 6. The note of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of November 5, 2008, whereby, on instructions from the Court’s President, it reminded the State that, in accordance with the twenty-fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment, the term for submitting the first report on compliance with the Judgment expired on June 20, 2008, and that said report had not been received by the Court within said term, whereby the State was requested to forward said report as soon as possible. 7. The communication of January 15, 2009 and its appendix, whereby the State informed that “Delia Muñoz-Muñoz, Esq., Supranational Special Public Prosecutor, had been appointed Agent of the Peruvian State in all the proceedings started before said […] Court.” Pursuant to Resolution No. 008-2009-JUS, said appointment was made within the framework of the State’s Legal Defense System, which was created “in order to consolidate, unify, and modernize the legal defense of the State in […] the supranational and international spheres.” 8. The note of the Secretariat of February 2, 2009, whereby it reiterated its request to the State to forward its first report on compliance with the Judgment, as “the term for submitting it expired over seven months ago,” wherefore an additional term to that effect was granted on February 16, 2009. 9. The communication of February 25, 2009, whereby the State pointed out that “a new system for the defense of the State has been created […] having supranational venue […] and which at present is in the process of being transferred” and that the Supranational Special Public Prosecutor “is taking the necessary steps regarding coordination with the various parties related to compliance with the [above-mentioned] Judgment,” and that “once the pertinent information has been gathered, it will be referred to [the Court] in due time.” 10. The note of March 5, 2009, reiterating the request to the State so that it submit its first report on compliance with the Judgment, as “the term for its submissi[on] expired over eight months ago.” CONSIDERING: 1. That it is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its judgments. 2. That Perú has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978 and it acknowledged the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That 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