7 c) regarding the obligation to publish the relevant sections of the Judgment, this measure had been complied with by the State. Moreover, it noted that, even though not ordered by the Court, the State did publish the Judgment on the electronic portal of the Ministry of Justice; d) regarding the obligation to establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law, the State should continue to report on the actual steps taken to have this measure implemented; e) regarding the obligation to recall and praise the work of Pedro HuilcaTecse in favor of the trade union movement in Peru during the official celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day), based on the information submitted by the State it was not possible to verify whether this obligation had actually been complied with at the 2005 and 2006 celebrations; f) regarding the obligation to erect a bust in the memory of Pedro HuilcaTecse, it values the steps taken to comply with this obligation and expects that the difference of opinions between the State and the victim’s next of kin regarding the location of the bust of Huilca-Tecse will be soon settled; g) regarding the obligation to provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin, it values the steps taken in that regard and expects that the State will continue to take specific steps aimed at complying with this measure of reparation that is of a continuing nature, considering the obstacles pointed out by those next of kin that are the beneficiaries of this measure; and h) regarding the obligation to pay the money compensation ordered by the Court as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, such obligation has been complied with by the State. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or "the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That, on March 3, 2005, the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). 4. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 1 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3.