3 be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention, having once accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court, must honor obligations set by the Court. This includes the duty of the State to inform the Court of all measures taken to comply with the orders that the Court delivers in these decisions. If the Court is to evaluate progress in compliance with the overall judgment, the State must be prompt in submitting Courtordered reports on its action to discharge each of the items called for in the decision.4 * * * 8. That in compliance with the obligation to provide victims with the information they requested, if appropriate, or adopt a justified decision in this regard, established in Operative point 5 of the judgment, the State submitted a note from the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC) on June 25, 2007. According to the note, on May 19, 1998, the then-Executive Vice President of the FIC met with the victims in the instant case. Their questions were answered and they were provided the information they requested about the Río Cóndor project, "obviously respecting standards of publicity and confidentiality in effect at that time." It also stated that, "the information provided was what the FIC […] had available and basically included the identity of investors, the amount of the authorized investment, timetables for capital income and capital actually produced." Regarding the rest of the information that the victims had requested at that time, the State reported that "in keeping with its powers, the FIC seeks advance information from interested organizations only when so required in the specific sectoral laws covering the activity to be developed by the investor […]. In the case of the Río Cóndor project, no such legal requirement existed, and therefore the FIC had no information to provide on this point. We acknowledge that in the meeting, the applicants were indeed not apprised of this legal situation. In view of all this, […] they were given […] the information that was available and that [the FIC] was empowered to deliver in accordance with its legal capacity." 9. That the representative reported that "the Foreign Investment Committee, […] within the six-month term granted by the Court[…], proceeded to respond to the request for access [to information submitted by] the victims in the instant case" and felt that the State had fully complied with this measure of redress ordered in judgment. 10. That the Inter-American Commission said that "it understands that […] the representatives of the injured party fe[lt] that the State had responded to their request." 3 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, par. 37; Cfr.I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Benavides v.Peru . Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 9; and I/A Court HR. Case of Caballero Delgado y Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 6. 4 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause 7; I/A Court HR. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 5; and I/A Court HR. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clause 5.