3 which they are parties.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. Because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is to comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction have a duty to honor the obligations ordered by the Court. Peru, therefore, must take all measures necessary to effectively comply with what the Court decided in the Judgment of February 28, 2003 (supra Having Seen 1). This obligation includes the State’s duty to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with what the Court ordered in that Judgment. This obligation of the State to tell the Court how it is complying with what the Court ordered is, therefore, essential in order to assess the status of compliance. 6. March 12, 2004, was the expiration of the one-year time period set in the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs of February 28, 2003 (supra Having Seen 1) for the State to submit a report on compliance with the obligations established in that judgment. 7. On three different occasions, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President and of the Court en banc (supra Having Seen 3, 4 and 5), requested the State to submit the report on compliance with the judgment; to date, however, the State has sent no information whatever. 8. Because the Court has received no information on compliance with the judgment on merits, reparations and costs of February 28, 2003, it does not have the data it needs to assess whether reparations have been complied with and to determine which reparations ordered by the Court have yet to be complied with. 9. The Court will consider the general status of compliance with its February 28, 2003 judgment on merits, reparations and costs once it receives the pertinent information. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its rulings and in accordance with articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131.