of the judgments had been complied with. 14 Similarly, in the cases of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, Vargas Areco, and Valle Jaramillo, as a result of the hearings to monitor compliance with the judgments that were held, the willingness to engage in discussions that was shown during these hearings by the respective States of Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Colombia, and the subsequent agreements between the parties in each case, significant progress was achieved in terms of compliance with the respective rulings. 15 In fact, Nicaragua complied with the Judgment, in its entirety, in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. 16 14. It is important to point out that, in response to this practice, the General Assembly of the OAS has reaffirmed the importance of “[t]he hearings held to monitor compliance with judgments as one of the most effective mechanisms developed to promote compliance with them.” 17 Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 69(3) of the current Rules of 14 In the Case of Gómez Palomino the mortal remains of Mr. Santiago Gómez Palomino were found and delivered to the family members after almost 20 years after their forced disappearance. Moreover, the publication in a newspaper of national circulation established in the ruling was carried out and a part of the payment established in the Judgment was ordered. Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clauses 6 to 11; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering clauses 8 to 40; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in exercise for the case of December 21, 2010, Considering clauses 33 to 37; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, Declarative Paragraphs 1 and 2, and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering clauses 6 to 15. In the case of De la Cruz Flores the publication in the Official Gazette was carried out and the Court declared that said measure of the Judgment had been complied with. Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Declarative Paragraph 1; Case of De la Cruz Flores V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2009, Considering clauses 22 to 25. 15 In the Case of Valle Jaramillo the parties reached an agreement to implement the measure of reparation concerning the grant of a scholarship for school or profession training, and said agreement was considered admissible by the Court. Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo V. Colombia. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 28, 2011, considering clauses 34 to 37, and Case of Valle Jaramillo V. Colombia. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, Considering clauses 6 to 11. In the Case of Vargas Areco the parties reached an agreement regarding payment of the appropriate default interests, and once the payments were made, the Court considered the measure to have been complied with. Cf. Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, Considering clause 39, and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2012, Considering clauses 21 to 24. 16 In the Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni, the State assumed a series of commitments aimed at carrying out the only operative paragraph that had not yet been complied with, which resulted in compliance of the Judgment as a whole, and the case was archived. Cf. Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni V. Nicaragua. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Operative Paragraphs 1 and 2. 17 Cf. General Assembly, “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” Resolution AG/RES. 2500 (XXXIX-O/09), approved by the fourth plenary sessions, held on June 4, 2009, Operative Paragraph 5; “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights,” Resolution AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10), approved by the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010, Operative Paragraph 5; “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” Resolution AG/RES. 2652 (XLI-O/11), approved by the fourth plenary session, held on June 7, 2011, Operative Paragraph six, and “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Resolution AG/RES. 2759 (XLII-O/12), approved by the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2012, Operative Paragraph 6. 7