16 responsible for serious human rights violations, in the terms of the treaty obligations assumed by the States.6 * * * 13. That, in the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, the Court decided that “the Colombian State [was] obliged to continue its efforts to locate and identify the remains of the victims and deliver them to their next of kin.” 14. That the most recent measures taken by the State that appear in the case file regarding finding the remains of the victims and delivering them to their next of kin correspond to the unsuccessful exhumations conducted in 1995, and that the Office of the Attorney General has indicated that it had not been able to order other exhumation procedures for reasons of public order. This matter is still pending compliance, because a State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to justify non-compliance with an international obligation. In this respect, the Court deems it necessary that the State forward specific, updated information on the measures taken to comply with the obligation to locate and deliver the remains of the victims. * * * 15. That, with regard to the matters that Colombia has complied with (supra subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the sixth considering paragraph), this Court considers that it is not pertinent to request any further information. 16. That the pending matters (supra subparagraphs (b) and (c) of the sixth considering paragraph, and eighth, eleventh and twelfth considering paragraphs) must be complied with by the State forthwith. Consequently, the State must forward a report on the matters pending compliance indicated by the Court and, subsequently, the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, and the InterAmerican Commission must present their comments on the State’s report. 17. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with its judgments on merits of December 8, 1995, and on reparations of January 29, 1997, when it has received the said State report and the corresponding comments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions and in accordance with Articles 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 25(1) of its Statute and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 6 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 2 paras. 116 and 117; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 106; Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment, supra note 3, sixth considering paragraph; and Barrios Altos case, supra note 2, para. 41.