11 in the present case,8 said aspect does not relate to the reparation measures ordered in the operative paragraphs thereof.9 18. That paragraphs 174 and 175 of the Judgment indicate the general duties of every State Party to the American Convention, such as Peru, to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 19. That pursuant to paragraph 173 of the Judgment, specifically with regard to monitoring compliance with said Judgment, the assessment of possible violations occurred in the new proceedings against Mr. Ramirez Rojas that were not analyzed by the Tribunal in its Judgment is excluded from the jurisdiction of this Court. The assessment of said possible violations would be a matter that the Tribunal can assess under its contentious jurisdiction, through the submission of a new application, and not through the mechanism of monitoring compliance with its Judgments. 20. That notwithstanding the aforementioned, this Court considers pertinent to recall, as per paragraphs 174 and 175 of the Judgment, that it is a duty of every State Party to the American Convention to ensure that the requirements of due process of law, with full guarantees of a hearing and defense for the accused, are respected in legal proceedings followed under its jurisdiction. * * * 21. Regarding the aforementioned, the Court considers it essential that the State provide additional updated information regarding the following points, in order for the Court to determine whether the State has fully complied with said obligations: a) that which is required in operative paragraph eleventh of the Judgment, in relation with the obligation to provide free medical and psychological care to Mr. Wilson García Asto through its health services, including the free provision of medicine (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) y 4(a) and Considering paragraph tenth); 8 Cf. Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 185, that in turn cites the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru in the case of Arturo Castillo Chirinos, Court Record N° 2730-06-PA/TC, dated July 21, 2006, paras. 12 and 13: “[…] The binding nature of the judgments of the [Inter-American Court] is not limited to the operative section (which implicates only the State that is a party in the proceeding), but also is extended to its foundation or ratio decidendi […].” 9 The Court has repeatedly indicated that, with regard to interpretations of its judgments, the Court can clarify the operative paragraphs or considerations, “provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative paragraphs.” In this sense, cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo. Request of Interpretation of the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights) Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 27; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Request of Interpretation of the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131, para. 14; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Request of Interpretation of the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights) Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 128, para. 12. Cf. also, Judgment C-180/06 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia from March 8, 2006, which indicated that “such effects on constitutional matters support not only the same decision contained in the operative paragraphs of the judgment, but also the juridical reasons contained in the considerations that are related directly and wholly (ratio decidendi)”.