truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 3 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction have a duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the Court’s rulings in its judgments. The State’s prompt observance of its obligation to report to the Court on how it is complying with each of the measures ordered is essential for evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 4 A. Adoption of such measures as are necessary to comply fully and promptly with aspects of the Judgment pending compliance and the obligation to report to the Court 7. In the Order of November 22, 2010 (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), the Court ordered the State to present, every three months, a report on compliance with the measures of reparation that are still pending. The only report presented by the State is dated April 6, 2011, even though subsequently, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat of the Court twice requested the State to present another report (supra Having Seen paragraph 6), given that the information available to the Court at this time does not allow it to adequately verify the level of compliance with the measures of reparation that remain pending. In this regard, it should be emphasized that, in the report of April 6, 2011, the State did not provide information about the medical treatment provided to Juan Carlos Bayarri (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), ordered in Operative Paragraph 9 of the Judgment. 8. In order to monitor and ensure the implementation of the measures of reparation ordered, this Court must be able to receive information on and verify the execution of the Judgment. 5 In this case, the State is not fulfilling its treaty-based obligation to inform the Court regarding the way in which it is implementing the measures of reparation pending compliance (supra Considering paragraph 6). 9. In view of the foregoing, and given that the Court does not have sufficient information to be able to monitor full compliance with the Judgment, it is necessary that the State provide timely and detailed information on all the measures adopted to date with regard to the reparations pending compliance. The Court keeps open the possibility that it may opportunely summon the parties to a hearing to assess compliance with the Judgment. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v.. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering paragraph 6. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering paragraph 7, and Case of Kawas Fernández Vs. Honduras, supra note 1, Considering paragraph 3. 5 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al.v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009, Considering paragraph 20; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Considering paragraph 10. 3