5 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Honduras became a State Party to the American Convention on September 8, 1977 and recognized the Court’s binding jurisdiction on September 9, 1981. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. Because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is to comply with them fully and promptly. 5. January 9, 2004, was the deadline established in the June 7, 2003 Judgment (supra Having Seen 1.19) for the State to submit its first report on compliance with the obligations established in that judgment. 6. On four different occasions, the Secretariat, acting on instructions from the President (supra Having Seen 4, 5, 7 and 9) asked the State to submit its report on compliance with the Judgment. The State’s only response has been to report that it “ha[d] already started coordinating for complying with [the] judgment, having already contacted the representatives of the petitioners to inform them of the progress made on compliance with the judgment” (supra Having Seen 6). 7. Because the Court has received no information concerning compliance with the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations of June 7, 2003, it does not have the data it needs to assess whether reparations have been complied with and to determine which Court ordered reparations are still pending. 8. The Court will consider the general status of compliance with its June 7, 2003 Judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations once it receives the relevant information. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its rulings and in accordance with articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131.