10 they observed that the State could deploy “a broader release of the [J]udgment and take actions in order to prevent those acts." 53. That the Commission stated that “it has effectively confirmed that the attachment submitted by the State matches with the text of the Judgment of March 14, 2001.” 54. That with that publication the State has complied with its duty to release the above-mentioned Judgment in other means of communication. 55. That although the State did not publish the complete Judgment on merits in Peru’s Official Gazette, what the Peruvian State has done so far considered as a whole so as to comply with this operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations, that is: 1. the publication, on April 8, 2005, of some parts of the Judgment on the merits in the Official Gazette El Peruano; 2. the release of said parts of the Judgment in the website of the Ministry of Justice of Peru, where a link thereto was included; and 3. the publication of the above mentioned Judgment on December 30, 2005, in newspaper “El Comercio”, complies with the obligation set forth by the Court (operative paragraph 5.d of the reparations Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001). * * * 56. That according to what has been set forth in Considering clauses 22 and 55 hereof, the State has complied with the following: a) the complete and effective deposit of the compensation corresponding to underage beneficiaries of the reparations Luis Álvaro León-Flores and Ingrid Elizabeth Ríos-Rojas, in a “trust created in the most favorable conditions according to the Peruvian banking practice” (operative paragraph two “in fine” of the reparations Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001), and b) the publication of the Judgment on the merits rendered by the Court on March 14, 2001 in Official Gazette El Peruano, as well as the release of its content in other means of communication (operative paragraph 5.d of the reparations Judgment rendered on November 30, 2001). * * * 57. That the States Parties to the Convention, which have acknowledged the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court, have the duty to accept the obligations it sets forth. This duty includes the obligation of the State to inform the Court on the measures adopted for the fulfillment of what it has ordered in said decisions. The timely observance of the State obligation to inform the Court on how it is complying with each of the items it orders is essential to assess the status of compliance of the Judgment as a whole.