6 15. At the private hearing (supra Having Seen 8), the Commission “evaluat[ed] the expression of will” of the State, nevertheless, it indicated that, “five years before the Judgment was handed down […], the parties do not [have] clarity about the actions that […] it has carried out, nor which would be the mechanisms to give participation to the indigenous peoples in the legislative reform process.” In the same way, the Commission signaled that “it [does] not know the substance of [the] initiatives” mentioned, in particular, that referred to in the project that would be presented “to the legislative agenda of 2008” to which the State referred. Also, it signaled that “beginning from the [year] 2007, it [has] not again mentioned […] any express participation that the indigenous peoples would have in this process. It [is] not known, in synthesis, of any significant advance in the fulfillment of this measure.” 16. The Court observes that the State has not submitted updated information about the steps that it alleges it has carried out to give fulfillment to the ninth, tenth and eleventh Operative Paragraphs of the Judgment. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal evaluates positively the will expressed by the State to comply with its obligations in this sense. In particular, the Tribunal highlights the promise to inform about the specific steps that it will carry out with the goal to encourage the partial reform of the Political Constitution, which it indicated are necessary to comply with this end of the Judgment. In this respect, the Tribunal considers it pertinent to remind that the conventional obligations of the State Parties are binding upon all their powers and organs (supra Considering 3). 17. The Tribunal is still waiting on information about all those measures carried out and planned with the end of: i) adopting, within a reasonable time period, the legislative measures necessary to establish a simple, quick and effective judicial recourse that permits the decision of the Supreme Electoral Board that affect human rights to be controlled, such as political rights, with observance of the respective legal guarantees and conventions, and to derogate the norms that impede the interposition of this recourse; ii) reforming the Electoral Law No. 331 of 2000 in a way that regulates with clarity the consequences of the lack of fulfillment of the requirements of electoral participation, the procedures that must be observed by the Supreme Electoral Board to determine such lack of fulfillment and the decisions supported in this respect that must be adopted by said Board, as well as the right of persons whose participation is affected by a decision of the State, and iii) reforming the regulation of those requirements provided in the Electoral Law No. 331 of 2000, which were declared in violation of the American Convention and to adopt, within a reasonable time period, the measures necessary so that the members of the indigenous and ethnic communities may participate in the electoral processes in an effective manner and, taking into account their traditions, uses and customs. 18. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Operative Paragraphs nine, ten and eleven of the Judgment are still pending fulfillment. * * * 19. Regarding the obligation of the State to make the payment of indemnity for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm, as well as the return of the costs and expenses (Operative Paragraphs twelve and thirteen of the Judgment), the State reiterated its “will” to comply soon with the obligation to pay “the moratorium interests for the period of January 1 to November 25, 2008, [which] remained consigned in Deed 198 of the compliance with