8 18. That the Court notes that eight years after the Judgment on reparations was rendered and over sixteen years after the events of the instant case occurred, no significant progress has been made in the investigation into the violations of human rights committed against Mr. Cantoral-Benavides, as the case is still at the stage of investigation and some procedural steps are still to be taken. Thus, the Court reiterates that the State cannot attribute its failure to comply with its conventional obligations or its delay in complying with them to the coordination steps that must be taken at the international level in order to effectively take the above-mentioned pending evidentiary procedure. 19. That the Court reiterates that it is a duty of the State to adopt all such pertinent concrete measures as are required to comply with this obligation and, particularly, to adopt all necessary measures to take the witnesses’ testimony, as well as to take any other steps which may contribute to achieve progress in the investigations. Therefore, the State must adopt all administrative, judicial, diplomatic or other measures in order to further progress in the investigation, as well as adopt all steps and procedures required to that effect. In this regard, the Court deems it necessary to require the State to submit up-to-date information on such steps and procedures, within the term set for that purpose in the operative paragraphs of this Order, so that the effectiveness of the investigation procedures adopted may be specifically assessed. * * * 20. That the States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fully comply with the obligations ordered by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court on the steps taken in order to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in the above-mentioned Judgment. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the measures ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate progress in compliance with Judgment as a whole.4 In this regard, OAS General Assembly has reiterated that in order for the Court to fully comply with the obligation to report thereto on compliance with its Judgments, it is necessary that the States Parties to the Convention duly submit the information the Court may require from them.5 21. That the duty to report to the Court on the implementation of measures is not fulfilled with the mere formality of submitting a document, but is a dual obligation which requires not only the formal submission of a document within the term set for that purpose but also the submission of specific, actual, up-to-date, and detailed material reference to the issues that fall within the scope of the obligation being monitored.6 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 7; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa-Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause 7, and Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause 7. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2500 (XXXIX-O/09) approved at the fourth plenary session held on June 4, 2009, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 6 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al regarding Argentina. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2006, Considering clause 20; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause 9, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons regarding Argentina. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering clause 14.