the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. These obligations include the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in its judgments. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 5 A. Obligation to pay, within one year, the amounts established in the annex to the Judgment and in paragraph 132 of the Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses. 7. The State advised, first, that it had coordinated a timetable for the payments. Subsequently, it indicated that the Lima Potable Water and Sewerage Services Company (hereinafter “SEDAPAL”) had “advised that it ha[d] made the payment to all the beneficiaries of the judgment, including the six persons who had not collected the amounts that corresponded to them at the date of the report of June 19, 2012.” In this regard, it indicated that “[r]egarding the group of six persons [who had not collected their payment],” SEDAPAL had advised “that they had been paid directly on September 21, 2012,” and that “[w]ith regard to the other four persons whose payment was pending, this has been made by a judicial deposit in the Banco de la Nación.” Therefore, the State asked the Court to “consider that this aspect of the Judgment had been fulfilled.” 8. The representative of the victims confirmed that the State, through SEDAPAL, had made available to 233 victims the payment in three installments of the reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as the payment for the costs and expenses, in the amounts ordered in the Judgment. In this regard, the representative advised that 229 victims had collected the amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, while “four […v]ictims, corresponding to former employees, had not yet come forward to collect the payment, [because] two […] of them had died [… and] the two remaining victims had not been located […] on Peruvian territory.” The representative indicated that “neither the Union of SEDAPAL Professional and Technical Employees – SIFUSE, nor […] the representative of the victims, [have] received from any of the 233 victims or their heirs any complaints with regard to the payment of the reparations ordered in the Judgment […], which the State had made available to the victims.” Lastly, the representative affirmed that “it corresponded to the Peruvian State to present information […] confirming that the State had made the judicial deposit of the compensation ordered for each of the […] four […] victims […], which will permit concluding definitively that the Peruvian State has complied fully with the Judgment.” 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein vs. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Gómez Palomino, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, fourth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 5, 2013, second considering paragraph. 3