8 (f) Regarding the obligation to designate a day dedicated to the children who disappeared during the internal armed conflict for different reasons, it appreciates the designation made by the State and the modification made, in order to mention the phenomenon of disappearance explicitly”; (g) Regarding the obligation to provide medical and psychological treatment, it “appreciates the efforts made by the State […]; however, it notes with grave concern the information on the suspension of some of the services that were being provided to the beneficiaries of the reparations.” It “awaits pertinent information regarding the contradictions between the State’s report and the observations of the representatives”; and (h) Regarding the obligation to pay the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda the amount established for costs and expenses, it “notes the information submitted by the representatives and hopes that the obstacles to payment of the accrued interest can be overcome as soon as possible, because the right to payment of costs and expenses existed from the time the period allowed for making this payment expired and the amounts were consigned to a banking institution.” 8. The brief of June 19, 2007, in which the representatives asked the Court to “convene a public hearing on Compliance with Judgment during its seventy-sixth regular session.” CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 3. That, Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Consequently, the States must ensure that the Court’s rulings are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the Judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s Judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, 1 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, second Considering paragraph; Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006 third Considering paragraph; and Case of Cesti Hurtado. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, third Considering paragraph.