-4d. with respect to the community development fund, the State shall inform the Court about the progress of the implementation committee in developing concrete plans and proposals created with the goal of providing for the health, housing and education of the Moiwana community and provide information about any such projects that have been funded. The State shall also inform the Court on the funds transferred and the measures taken in order to establish an operative budget to guarantee that the Committee can perform all necessary operative and logistical matters of its mandate; and e. with regard to the memorial, the State shall inform the Court about the status of the project’s completion, including any additional photographs or other descriptions as they become available. 3. To request the Representatives of the victims and their family members and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to file comments on the above-mentioned brief of the State within four and six weeks, respectively, as from the date of receipt of the report. […] 4. The Secretariat’s notes of October 22, 2008 and May 13, 2009, by which the State was advised that, according to the Second Operative paragraph of the aforementioned Order, the term to submit a detailed report on the actions taken to comply with the reparations ordered by the Tribunal that are still pending fulfillment had expired on March, 25, 2008 and it had not been received. Accordingly, the State was requested to submit such report as soon as possible. Later, in accordance with the Secretariat’s note of September 2, 2009, a new deadline was given for the State to submit it, which expired on October 2, 2009 without said report having been received. Therefore, by means of the Secretariat’s note of October 22, 2009 the State was requested to submit said report as soon as possible. Considering: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Suriname became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on November 12, 1987. 3. That pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Therefore, State Parties must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. That the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal; therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly and fully comply with them within the term set for this purpose. 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 7, 2009, considering clause No. 3, and Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 7, 2009, considering clause No. 4.