4 copy of the article published in "La Nación" newspaper on January 30, 2008, containing the proven facts and operative paragraphs of the judgment, and displayed a copy of Decree No. 10854 and the bank slip for the deposit of the relevant amount in the account of Mr. Ricardo Canese. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its judgments is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Paraguay has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 24, 1989 and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, the States are required to guarantee that the Court’s orders are implemented in decisions made at the domestic level.2 * * * 4. That with regard to the obligation of the State to "pay the sum of US$35,000.00 (thirty-five thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Paraguayan currency, to compensate the non-pecuniary damage caused to Ricardo Nicolás Canese Krivoshein" (Operative Paragraph 6 of the judgment), and the duty to "pay Ricardo Nicolás Canese Krivoshein the total amount of US$5,500.00 (five thousand five hundred United States dollars), for costs and expenses" (Operative Paragraph 7 of the judgment), the Court takes note of the State's evidence that it has made the payments to the victim as ordered in the judgment (supra Having seen clauses 10 and 11). 5. That in the private hearing on monitoring compliance, the State asserted that its payment reflected the exact amount of damages ordered in the judgment. Furthermore, the State asked the Court to forgive payment of overdue interest that 2 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, par. 131; I/A Court HR. Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of November 30, 2007, Considering clause 3; and I/A Court HR. Case of MolinaTheissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of July 10, 2007, Considering clause 2.