Court how it is complying with each of the points ordered by it is essential in assessing the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole, and that this is not fulfilled merely by the formal presentation of a document before the Court, but rather it is twofold in nature and effective compliance requires the formal presentation of a document within the allotted time and with specific, true, current and detailed information on the issues to which this obligation refers. 14 14. Without proper information from the State, this Court can not effectively exercise its powers of monitoring compliance with the implementation of its Judgments. It is relevant to recall that providing sufficient information on the adopted measures is an obligation of the State established by this Court, 15 and the General Assembly of the OAS has reiterated that, in order for the Court to fully comply with the obligation to report on compliance with its judgments, it is necessary for States parties to provide the required information. 16 15. Peru must take all the necessary steps to fully comply with the provisions of the Court in the judgments on the merits and reparations (supra Having Seen clause one). This obligation includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court on the measures adopted to fully comply with that which was ordered in the Judgments. 16. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it essential that this State present a complete, detailed and updated brief on measures taken to “determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez,” the only measure of the Judgment that is still pending compliance (supra Considering clause 11). Similarly, it is necessary that the Court receive the observations of the representatives of the victims and the Inter-American Commission in this regard. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its judgments under Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 24 and 30 of its Statute and 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Considering clauses nine and ten. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause seven, and Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2013, Considering clause sixteen. 14 15 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause five, and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering clause twenty-one. 16 Cf. General Assembly of the OAS, “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights,” Resolution AG/RES. 2759 (XLII-O/12), approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2012, Operative Paragraph five. 6