5 necessary for the States Parties to submit in a timely fashion the information that the Tribunal requires of them.4 6. That through letters sent by the Secretary of the Court, following the instructions of the President, repeated on several occasions (supra Having Seen 3), the State was reminded of its obligation to inform on the measures adopted toward complying with the Judgment. 7. That in keeping with what is established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court shall be promptly and fully complied with by the State. Likewise, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The obligation of States Parties under the Convention to comply promptly with the Court’s decisions is binding to all branches and functions of the state.5 8. That without the information that is owed by the State, this Court cannot carry out its role of monitoring the execution of the judgments handed down. That for the sake of supervising and guaranteeing the application of the measures of protection and reparation mandated, the Court should be able to confirm and have information on the execution of the Judgment, which is “the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling.”6 9. That the Peruvian State has not informed on its compliance with the Judgment, and therefore has failed to comply with its obligation under the Convention. * * * 10. That in monitoring for full compliance of the Judgment issued in this case, the Court finds it crucial that the State submit information on each of the orders laid out in the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs of March 3, 2005, in this case (supra first Having Seen paragraph). 11. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with the present Judgment only once it has received the pertinent information on the operative paragraphs still pending compliance. 4 General Assembly, Order AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) approved during the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2007, titled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. 5 See the Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paragraph 60; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru. Monitoring of Judgment Compliance, supra note 3, Considering paragraph seven, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 2, 2007, third Considering paragraph. 6 See the Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 5, paragraph 73, and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, eighth Considering paragraph.