23 conjunction with Article 1(1), by deliberately failing to comply with the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission. In this respect it is enough to state that this Court, in several judgments and advisory opinions has interpreted the meaning of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention. Article 50 provides for the drafting of a preliminary report that is transmitted to the State so the State may adopt the proposals and recommendations of the Convention. The second provision provides that, if within a period of three months, the matter has not been resolved or submitted for a decision of the Court, the Commission will draw up a final report. Therefore, if the matter has been submitted for a decision of the Court, as it has been in the instant case, there is no authority to draw up the second report. In the Court's judgment, the term "recommendations" used by the American Convention should be interpreted to conform to its ordinary meaning, in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For that reason, a recommendation does not have the character of an obligatory judicial decision for which the failure to comply would generate State responsibility. As there is no evidence in the present Convention that the parties intended to give it a special meaning, Article 31(4) of the Vienna Convention is not applicable. Consequently, the State does not incur international responsibility by not complying with a recommendation which is not obligatory. As to Article 44 of the American Convention, the Court finds that it refers to the right to present petitions to the Commission, and that it has no relation to the obligations of the State. 68. As the Court has found that there has been a violation of the human rights protected by the Convention, it must rule on the reparation of the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the violation of those rights and the payment of fair compensation to the injured party, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention. 69. In the instant case, reparations should consist of the continuation of the judicial proceedings inquiring into the disappearance of Isidro Caballero-Delgado and María del Carmen Santana and punishment of those responsible in conformance with Colombian domestic law. 70. that: As to the costs requested by the Commission, the Court has already stated the Commission cannot demand that expenses incurred as a result of its own internal work structure be reimbursed through the assessment of costs. The operation of the human rights organs of the American system is funded by the Member States by means of their annual contributions. (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations (art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 114; Neira Alegria et al. Case, Judgment of January 19, 1995, Series C No. 20, para. 87.) 71. With respect to compensation and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the relatives of the victims in their legal actions before the Colombian authorities in relation to this proceeding, the Court holds that those costs should be charged to the State. As the Court lacks the evidence to allow it to fix the amount, the compensation and costs phase is opened. 72. NOW, THEREFORE,