information on the payment of the corresponding compensation, 6 and will continue to monitor the payment of this sum. D) Regarding the obligation to publish the judgment (sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 21. The State indicated that it “had complied partially with the publication in the Official Gazette of Supreme Resolution No. 032-2006-JUS of February 24, 2006, and it remained to make the publication in another national newspaper.” 22. The representatives indicated that “[t]he State has not explained the reasons or the motives why it has not complied with the publication of the judgment in a national newspaper, and it has not indicated when it will comply with this.” 23. The Commission indicated that “the information forwarded by the State […] does not show that it has made progress in complying with this obligation.” It added that it “hopes that the State will adopt measures to comply fully with this aspect of the judgment and that it will report this in its next brief.” 24. The Court observes that, in the order on monitoring compliance with judgment of July 12, 2007, the Court determined that this aspect had been complied with partially, because it had verified the publication “in the Official Gazette, while publication in another national newspaper remained pending.” 7 In this regard, the State has not provided documentation to support any progress in relation to the publication of the judgment in a national newspaper, and it has not indicated when it will comply with this publication. In this regard, the Court requests the State to provide specific information on the situation regarding compliance with this measure of reparation and on any possible obstacles that have led to its non-compliance to date. THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions and in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES THAT: 6 In a communication of May 13, 2009, the State consulted the Court about the identification of “Marcos Ramírez Álvarez.” In this document, the State indicated that, according to the respective National Identity Document (DNI), the said beneficiary is registered as “Marco Antonio Ramírez Álvarez” and, in this regard, it requested the Court to advise “whether this is the same person, in order to proceed immediately to make the [corresponding] payment” for reparations (file of monitoring compliance, tome IV, folio 1206). In this regard, in a note of the Court’s Secretariat of May 19, 2009, on the instructions of the President of the Inter-American Court, the State was reminded that, in paragraph 97(131) of the judgment delivered by the Court in this case, it was established as a proven fact that “Urcesino Ramírez Rojas has a son, Marco Antonio Ramírez Álvarez.” In addition, a copy of the birth certificate of the latter was forwarded, which appears as attachment 60 to the application. Hence, despite the interchangeable use of the said names in the text of the judgment, it was recorded that it was the same person (file of monitoring compliance, tome IV, folio 1208). 7 Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, thirteenth considering paragraph. 7