-2 And decided, inter alia, “[t]o request the State to submit to the Inter-American Court, by May 23, 2005, at the latest, a detailed report” on the aspects pending compliance. 5. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of July 19, 2005, in which it reiterated to the State that it should submit the report on compliance (supra Having seen paragraph 4). 6. The communication of the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State”) of September 13, 2005, in which it indicated that it had complied partially with the third operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, by the publication of the judgment in the Diario de Centro América on June 14, 2002. 7. The note of the Secretariat of September 16, 2005, in which it informed the State that it awaited “more detailed information concerning all the reparations ordered by the Court that are pending compliance.” 8. The observations of the Commission of September 18, 2005, in which they indicated that the State had not provided any information on the obligations that were pending compliance, and requested the Court to require the State to forward the publication it had referred to in the Diario de Centro América. 9. The observations of the representatives of September 30, 2005, in which they indicated that there was no documentary evidence concerning the information provided by the State regarding the publication in the Diario de Centro América. They also expressed their concern about the time that had elapsed without the State taking any concrete decisions to comply with the other aspects established in the operative paragraphs of the judgment on reparations. 10. The note of the Secretariat of January 24, 2006, in which, on the instructions of the President, it again reiterated to the State that it should submit the report by February 24, 2006, at the latest (supra Having seen paragraphs 4 and 5). CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That, Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” Consequently, the State must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 1 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, third considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph; Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph.