8 complete timeline of actions directed to the complete fulfillment of the Judgment. The Tribunal understands that this requires the efforts of diverse State authorities; nevertheless, it is necessary that in the time period proposed of three months, the State define special short, medium, and long-term goals to give prompt and full observance to the pending obligations of fulfillment, in the terms of Considering paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 24 of the present Order. Once the State submits this time line to the Tribunal, it must inform the Court every four months of its advances in the achievement of the goals established and on the fulfillment of the orders of the Judgment pending completion. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, In the exercise of its attributes of supervision of compliance with its decisions and in conformity with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 25(1) and 30 of the Statute, and 31(2) and 69 of its Rules, DECLARES: 1. That in conformity with that set forth in the Considering paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the present Order, the State has partially complied with the following Operative Paragraphs of the Judgment: a) to pay indemnities for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, which must be delivered to the organization YATAMA, that must distribute it as it corresponds (Operative Paragraph twelve of the Judgment of June 23, 2005); b) to pay the quantity provided for costs and expenses generated in the internal ambit and in the international process before the Inter-American system of protection of human rights, in favor of the organization YATAMA, which will deliver to CENIDH and CEJIL their corresponding parts to compensate their expenses (Operative Paragraph thirteen of the Judgment of June 23, 2005). 2. To maintain open the process of supervision of compliance with the points pending fulfillment signaled in the previous Operative Paragraph, as well as of the following, namely: a) to adopt, within a reasonable time period, the legislative measures necessary to establish a simple, quick and effective judicial recourse that permits the decisions 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 (Operative Paragraph nine of the Judgment of June 23, 2005); b) to reform the Electoral Law No. 331 of 2000 in a way that regulates with clarity the consequences of not fulfilling the requisites of electoral participation, the procedures that must be observed by the Supreme Electoral Board to determine such lack of fulfillments and the supported decisions in this respect that must be adopted by said Board, as well as the rights of the persons whose participation is seen as affected by a decision of the State (Operative Paragraph ten of the Judgment of June 23, 2005);