10 immaterial damages as well as reimbursement for costs and expenses. However, both the payment of US$ 7,400.00 to Mr. Ramírez Rojas and the compensation for Marcos Ramírez Rojas remain pending (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(c), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and 4(c)). Since the parties have not specified under which category of reparations the remaining US$ 7,400.00 owed to Mr. Ramírez Rojas falls, the Tribunal is unable to declare that the State has complied with its obligation to indemnify Mr. Ramírez Rojas. However, the Court considers that the State has complied with the other monetary reparations for the remaining victims, with the exception of the compensation owed to Mr. Marcos Ramírez Rojas. Due to the fact that he has reached the age of majority it is no longer necessary to create a trust in his name (supra Having Seen paragraphs 3(d)(iv) and 4(c)). 13. That the State has published the relevant sections of the Judgment in an the Official Gazette, but not in another newspaper of nation-wide circulation (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(d), 3(f) y 4(d)). 14. That with regard to compliance with the requirements for due process of law, with full guarantees of a hearing and defense for the accused, in the new criminal proceeding against Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, the Court notes that there is a difference of opinion between the parties as to whether this Court is competent to monitor said aspect (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(e), 3(g) and 4(e)). 15. That pursuant to the principle of compétence de la compétence, this Court cannot leave it to the parties to determine that which is within the Court’s jurisdiction. This decision is a duty that is to be fulfilled by the Court in the exercise of its jurisdictional functions.6 16. That paragraphs 173 through 175 of the Judgment indicate the following:7 173. The Court observes that the other allegations by the Commission and the representatives with regard to Article 8 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas relate to matters that shall be resolved in the new process that is on course at the moment. In that respect, the Court considers that it does not have competence to supersede the national judge in the evaluation of evidence in a particular case. 174. As indicated previously, the State “is obligated, by virtue of its general duties to respect rights and to give them domestic legal effects (arts 1(1) and 2 of the Convention), to ensure that violations such as those that have been declared in the […] Judgment do not recur in its jurisdiction.” 175. Thus, the State must ensure that the new process against Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas complies with the requirements of due process of law, with full guarantees of a hearing and defense for the accused. 17. That, even if the respect to due process of law in the new proceedings against Mr. Ramírez Rojas is part of the considerations of the merits in the Judgment delivered 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 31; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et.al. Judgment of November, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 43, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 45. 7 The footnotes have been omitted.