5 procedure; the measures taken; the progress achieved in the procedure under this law, and the current status of the procedure; and ii) The specific measures taken to abstain from carrying out [to protect from] any acts that might lead State agents, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographic area where the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community live and carry out their activities, until the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the lands of the Community has been carried out; (c) The obligation, “in equity, as reparation for non-pecuniary damage, within 12 months [to] invest the sum of US$50,000 (fifty thousand United States dollars) in works or services of collective interest for the benefit of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, by common agreement with the Community and under the supervision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment of August 31, 2001). In this regard, although the State has reported on the official delivery of the student hostel, and both the Commission and the representatives have indicated that the State has handed over this building, the Court requires the State to submit updated information, specifically mentioning the total cost of the work, and the way in which the interest on arrears owed was calculated, so that it may assess compliance with this operative paragraph; and (d) The obligation, “in equity, [to] pay the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the sum of US$30,000 (thirty thousand United States dollars) for expenses and costs incurred by the members of that Community and their representatives in the domestic proceedings and in the international proceedings before the inter-American protection system” (seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of August 31, 2001). 12. That monitoring compliance with the judgments delivered by the InterAmerican Court is carried out by means of a written procedure, in which the State in question must submit any reports that the Court requests, and the Inter-American Commission and the victims or their legal representatives must forward their respective observations. Despite this, the Court itself has recognized that, should it be opportune and necessary, it can convene the parties to a hearing to listen to their arguments on compliance with the judgment, and it has done so in previous cases.4 13. That, regarding hearings, Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that: 4 Cf. Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007; Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007; Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2007; Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2007; “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2007; Blake v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 29, 2007; Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 29, 2007; and the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 29, 2007.