8 assessment of the extent of the State’s compliance with this reparation measure, a situation that is worsened by information that has been systematically presented by the representatives [...] in relation to the actions of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the Dominican Republic, which could hinder compliance with the judgment.” The Commission concluded that the State should be required to submit information, as soon as possible, to clarify the measures adopted in its domestic law to comply with the Judgment. 24. The Court notes that the legislative and administrative measures included in the State report of September 14, 2009 (Considering Clause 20) could help to make advances in compliance with operative paragraph eight. Nevertheless, the State has not explained the relevance and connection of the documents provided, and has not provided the information requested by the Court in a timely manner, nor has it referred to the representatives’ observations, who have expressed that certain measures adopted by the State do not facilitate compliance with the Judgment. 25. In this regard, the Court observes that the State has repeatedly stated that it has implemented a variety of domestic measures to comply with operative paragraph eight. Nevertheless, it deems that, over four years after the Judgment was issued, although the State has provided many documents that refer to the domestic measures issued, it has not explained how these are related or argued specifically how such measures comply with the Judgment. It is worth noting that in the proceedings of contentious cases and the monitoring of compliance, the submission of evidentiary documents is not sufficient —parties are required to defend the relationship between the evidence and the facts under consideration,11 therefore they must duly specify their appropriateness and justification. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems that to date the State has not made it possible to appropriately determine whether the domestic measures adopted by the State achieve the goal of “regulating the procedure and the requirements to attain Dominican citizenship, through the late registration of birth,” pursuant to that established in paragraph 239 of the Judgment issued by this Court on September 8, 2005. 26. Based on the foregoing, the Court requests the State to present a clear, concise, and detailed report indicating: a) the specific legislative, administrative and other measures, following the of issuance of the Judgment, that comply with the Court’s orders in operative paragraph eight; and b) how such measures regulate the proceeding and requirements to attain Dominican citizenship through the late registration of birth, pursuant to that set forth in operative paragraph eight of the Judgment of September 8, 2005. In addition, the Court deems it of great importance that both the representatives and the Commission present their observations, in a specific and justified manner, concerning the measures adopted that comply, and those that do not comply, with operative paragraph eight. 27. Finally, the Court deems that the State has taken several actions to execute operative paragraph eight of the present Judgment; however, it requests that the State executes the measures necessary for its immediate compliance. * * * 11 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 277; Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 301, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 284.