2 1. To request that the State of Nicaragua adopt all measures necessary to effectively and promptly comply with those points ordered by the Court in the Judgment that are still outstanding [...], in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To request that the State of Nicaragua submit to the Court the timeline referred to in [the] Order by no later than September 6, 2010. 3. To request that the State of Nicaragua present a report every four months on advances in achieving the goals established in the timeline, as well as reporting on compliance with the points of the Judgment that are pending fulfillment[...] […] 3. The brief of September 30, 2010, whereby the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter “the State” or “Nicaragua”) requested an extension from the Court for presenting its “Detailed Timeline of Actions to Fully Comply with the Judgment” (infra Having Seen 5). 4. The briefs of September 21 and December 21, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) requested that the Tribunal order the State to present the timeline requested in the Court’s Order of May 28, 2010 (supra Having Seen 2, 3; and, infra Having Seen 5). 5. The letter from the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of September 23, 2010, whereby it reminded the State that the period within which to present the detailed and comprehensive timeline of steps to fully comply with the Judgment had expired (supra Having Seen 2), and, pursuant to instructions from the President of the Tribunal, the State was requested to submit this timeline as soon as possible. In addition, the Secretariat’s letter of October 4, 2010, in which, pursuant to instructions from the President, it granted the State an extension up until November 1, 2010 to submit the timeline. Finally, the Secretariat’s letter of January 25, 2011, in which, pursuant to instructions from the President, it requested once again that the State submit the timeline as soon as possible, given that the Court intended to analyze the State’s compliance with the Judgment during its regular session of hearings to be held from February 21 to March 5, 2011. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Nicaragua is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since September 25, 1979, and it acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, on February 12, 1991. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully and promptly comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.1 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 19, 2011,