3 2. that it shall maintain the procedure of supervision of compliance with the obligations pending in the instant case open, in conformity with the provisions in considering paragraph eight of the […] Order. [and] ORDER[ED]: 3. To urge the State to adopt all measures required to give effect to and provide for expeditious compliance with the reparations ordered in the November 3, 1997, and November 27, 1998, judgments not yet complied with and pending, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 4. To require the State that, by April 1st, 2004 at the latest, it submit, a detailed report indicating all measures adopted to conduct effectively the investigation concerning what occurred to Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez, and on the whereabouts of his mortal remains, as indicated in considering paragraph eight of the […] Order. 5. To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, to submit their observations to the State’s report mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within two months of the receipt thereof. 6. To continue supervising compliance with the Judgment on the Merits of November 13, 1997 and the Judgment on Reparations delivered on November 27, 1998 in the Case of Castillo-Páez. 4. Note CDH-10.733/518 of April 6, 2004, by means of which the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, requested the State to submit the report on compliance with the judgments (supra Having seen 3), given that the deadline for the submission of the cited report had expired on April 1, 2004. 5. On April 23, 2004, the State expressed that it had not yet submitted the report on compliance with the judgment required by the Court, as a consequence of the resignation of the agent and the successive resignation of the alternate agent in the case, and that it would provide it once a new agent was appointed. 6. The June 7, 2004, brief, whereby the State informed that it had appointed an agent for the case. 7. Note CDH-10.733/533 of July 9, 2004, whereby the Secretariat, with instructions from the full Court, informed the State that, during its LXIII Regular Session, it had taken knowledge of the fact that Peru had not submitted the report that it should have submitted by April 1, 2004, at the latest (supra Having seen 3). In this respect, the Secretariat reiterated to the State its request for the submission, within the shortest possible time, of the report on compliance with Court orders, which had been already requested to it in note CDH-10.733/518 of April 6, 2004 (supra Having seen 4). CONSIDERING: 1. That supervision of compliance with its orders is one of the attributions inherent to the Court’s jurisdictional functions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and that it recognised the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. On November 3, 1997, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits and on November 27, 1998, its judgment on reparations in the instant case (supra Having seen 1 and 2).