5 7. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. The duty to provide information is a twofold obligation effective compliance with which calls for the formal submission of a document within the prescribed time period and a specific, accurate, current and 4 detailed material reference to the issues around which such obligation revolves. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.5 * 8. That, pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 3, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 7), the State was required to submit a report by May 23, 2005, stating all measures adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court and which were thus far pending compliance. 9. That, since such date, the State has not provided any information regarding compliance with the Judgments of the Court, in spite of the repeated requests to that effect (supra Having Seen clause No. 10). 10. That the State’s position in that regard conflicts with its duty to comply with and report to the Inter-American Court on the measures adopted to carry out, domestically, the measures of reparation ordered by the Court, while denying the victims and the beneficiaries of such reparations their right to a fair international trial.6 11. That, in the course of monitoring comprehensive compliance with the Judgments on the merits and on reparations delivered in the instant case, and having analyzed the information received, the Court found that the State has not provided sufficient information on the following aspects that are still pending compliance: a) The reinstatement of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo in the teaching sector in public institutions, on the understanding that the amount of her salary and other benefits is to be equal to the remuneration she was receiving for these activities in the public and private sector at the time of her detention (first operative paragraph of the Judgment on Reparations of November 27, 1998); 4 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 14; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering clause No. 14. 5 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 7. 6 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 11; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 130.