compensation and costs and expenses, payment was still pending corresponding to the period of January 1, 2008 until September 25, 2008, the date on which the payment agreement was reached with the victims. 8. The State did not present information on compliance with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment pending compliance, nor did it submit the proposed schedule (supra Having Seen clauses 2, 3, and 5, and infra Considering clause 9). Due to the foregoing, the Commission did not present any observations. B. Regarding the duty of the State to report on the measures adopted 9. The last written report that the State submitted to this Court was on December 6, 2008. Subsequently, during the private hearing on May 26, 2010, the State pledged to submit to the Court “a detailed and complete timeline of actions directed to the complete fulfillment of the Judgment.” The Court requested the State to send the foregoing timeline by no later than September 6, 2010. 7 Nevertheless, it was not submitted, even though an extension was granted for this purpose. Subsequently, by Order of June 30, 2011, the Court requested the State to present information on the steps taken to comply with the Judgment and to submit the timeline it had proposed by no later than October 4, 2011. 8 Despite the fact that the foregoing request was repeated on four occasions, the State did not submit the report and timeline as requested. The State also did not appear at the private hearing on May 28, 2013, nor did it present observations on the information provided by the Commission and the representatives during said hearing and in their subsequent briefs (supra Having Seen clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8). 10. In this regard, the representatives argued that the absence of Nicaragua at the private hearing confirmed what had already been evidenced in writing; that is, that it had no intention of complying with the Judgment, and that, in turn, it was also questioning the authority of the Court to monitor its judgments. As a result of the foregoing, and due to the severity of the manifest lack of compliance by the State, as well as to prevent InterAmerican justice from becoming illusory, they requested, pursuant to Articles 65 of the American Convention and 30 of the Statute of the Court, to inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) about “the express unwillingness and serious lack of compliance on the part of the Nicaraguan State with regard to [the] Judgment,” and that the Court establish in its decision, “its competence to continue monitoring compliance with the foregoing [J]udgment and […] [to] request information from the parties for such purposes.” For its part, the Commission expressed its concern regarding the absence of the State at the private hearing and indicated that this situation is a clear breach of the obligation to inform the Court and a repudiation of the mechanism of supervision of compliance with the judgments. As such, it requested the Court to assess whether such situation merits the application of Article 65 of the Convention, with the express statement that this does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Court to continue monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 7 Cf. Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Having seen clause 4, Considering clauses 7 to 25 and Operative Paragraph 2. 8 Cf. Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2011, Operative Paragraph 2. 5