9 domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.3 8. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court on the measures adopted to comply with this Court’s Judgment, as well as in the instant Order. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case.4 Furthermore, the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, with the purpose that the Tribunal can fully comply with the obligation to report about the compliance with its decisions, it is necessary that State Parties timely provide to the Court the information that the latter requests them.5 * * * 9. That the Court values the State's efforts to comply with the reparations ordered by this Tribunal in the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs in the instant case. However, while monitoring the full compliance with said Judgment, and after analyzing the information provided by the State, Commission, and representatives in their respective communications regarding compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2 through 4), the Court observes that the State has only partially complied with each of the points delineated in said Judgment and therefore none of them can be declared completely fulfilled by the State. 10. That the State has provided Mr. García Asto with free medical and psychological attention; however, Mr. García Asto has had to pay for medications, which is one of the State's obligations stipulated in the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 4(a)). 11. That although the State has taken steps toward the implementation of professional training and update for the victims, compliance with this obligation is still pending (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(b), 3(b) and 4(b)). 12. That the State decided to pay the victims all of the monetary reparations ordered by the Tribunal in one sole sum, including compensation for material and 3 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph sixth; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph fourth, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph sixth. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios-Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph seventh; Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph seventh, and Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraph thirteenth. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted in fourth plenary session, celebrated on June 5, 2007, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Annual Report”.