2 f) the duty to publicize via broadcast by a radio station with widespread coverage on the Atlantic Coast the paragraphs stated in Chapter VII (Proven Facts), Chapters IX and X, and the operative paragraphs of the Judgment (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment of June 23, 2005). 4. The communication of December 6, 2008, through which the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter the “State” or “Nicaragua”) submitted a report regarding the advances in its compliance with the Judgment issued by the Tribunal in the present case. 5. The brief of January 5, 2009, whereby the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations to the report submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 4). In the aforementioned brief, the representatives requested that this Tribunal summon the parties to a hearing on the supervision of compliance with the Judgment. 6. The communication of March 12, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “Commission” or “Inter-American Commission”) submitted its observations on the report submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 4). 7. The Order issued by the President of the Tribunal (hereinafter “the President”) of April 21, 2010, whereby he called the State, the representatives, and the Inter-American Commission to a private hearing with the purpose of receiving information by the State on its compliance with the Judgment issued in the present (supra Having Seen 1) and to hear the observations of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives in that regard. 8. The private hearing held by the Court at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, on May 26, 2010.1 CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Nicaragua is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since September 25, 1979 and accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court according to Article 62 of the Convention on February 12, 1991. 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”. The treaty obligations of the States Parties bind all the powers or functions of the State.2 1 To this hearing appeared: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Lilly Ching, Specialist Attorney of the Executive Secretary; b) for the representatives of the victims: Brooklyn Rivera (YATAMA), Norwin Solano (CENIDH), Alejandra Nuño (CEJIL), Marcia Aguiluz (CEJIL) and Georgina Vargas (CEJIL), and c) for the State of Nicaragua: María Elsa Fixione Ocón, Coordinator of the International Criminal, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs of the Attorney General´s Office of the Republic, and Ana Cecilia Navarro Mierisch, Legal Advisor of the Nicaraguan Embassy. 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo and Others v. Panamá. Competence. Judment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, par. 60; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering third, and Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Perú. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering third.