3 those dealing with the protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 5. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in that judgment. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each element ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential to assess the status of compliance in the case.3 Moreover, the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, for the Court to comply fully with its obligation to inform the Assembly about compliance with its rulings, the States Parties must provide it with the information it requests promptly.4 6. That by Order of September 22, 2006, the Inter-American Court declared, inter alia, that it [would] keep the proceedings open to monitor compliance with the following points: a. payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage; b. investigation of the facts surrounding this case and punishment of the perpetrators; c. payment of pecuniary damages; and d. annulment of the military proceedings and the effects resulting therefrom. * * * 7. That as regards payment of pecuniary damages, the State affirmed that “[t]he Ministerio de Justicia (the Ministry of Justice) took appropriate action so that the budget modification for additional funds to settle any unpaid compensation awarded by the Court be made […] as a result, Urgency Executive Order No. 030-2005 was published in the Official Newspaper El Peruano on December 2, 2005;” and that “[s]uch additional funds, which included the damages awarded to Mr. Cesti-Hurtado, were only expended to pay the compensations awarded to all the victims except for Mr. Cesti-Hurtado because he, before the budget actions yielded any results, instituted collection judicial proceedings and 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Supra note 1, Considering clause 43; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Supra note 1, Considering clause 6. 3 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 7; Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, Considering clause 7; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 7. 4 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”; Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 7, 2008, Considering clause 5; and Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, Considering clause 7.