4 also be necessary, within this three-month period proposed by the State, that the latter define its short, medium, and long-term goals to promptly and fully comply with its outstanding obligations. On the understanding that this would require the efforts of various State agencies, the Court mandated that once this timeline was submitted, the State should report once every four months on its progress with the goals set out in the timeline, as well as reporting on compliance with the points of the Judgment pending fulfillment. 8. Following the Court’s Order of May 28, 2010 (supra Having Seen 2 to 5), it is apparent that the State has twice been asked to present its timeline and that, despite having asked the Court for an extension, this document was yet to be submitted. In this respect, approximately nine months have passed since the original period for submission expired, and about one year has passed since the Court’s last Order on monitoring compliance in this case. Furthermore, the Court notes that it has not received any information from the State on the steps it has taken to comply with any of the outstanding obligations, except that which concerns the presentation of the timeline that the State itself proposed. 9. In order to guarantee the implementation of the reparation measures so ordered, this Court must be able to verify and obtain information on the implementation of the Judgment.6 In the present case, the State has not been honoring its treaty obligation to inform the Court as to the manner in which it is fulfilling the outstanding reparation measures (supra Having Seen 2). 10. In light of the foregoing and given the Court lacks sufficient mechanisms to supervise full compliance with the Judgment, it is imperative that the State provide information in a timely and detailed fashion on all the steps it has taken to date to achieve compliance, regardless of whether it has submitted its timeline to the Court. In this respect, the Tribunal reminds the State that the Judgment provides for specific reparation measures that are themselves independent from the design and implementation of the timeline. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercising its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions in accordance with Articles 33, 61(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 24 and 30 of the Statue, and Articles 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, RULES: 1. To request that the State of Nicaragua adopt all measures necessary to effectively and promptly comply with those points that are outstanding, as stated in Having Seen 2 of 6 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009, Considering Clause 20; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President-in-Office of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause 16, and Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 10.