4 within the prescribed time period, and, a specific, accurate, current and detailed material reference to the issues around which such obligation revolves.7 9. Without the submission of the proper information by the State, this Court cannot exercise its role regarding monitoring compliance with the judgments delivered. It is worth recalling that the obligation to provide sufficient information on the measures adopted is a State obligation already established by this Court8 and the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, in order for the Tribunal to be able to fully comply with the obligation to report on the compliance with its judgments, it is necessary for States Parties to timely provide information as so required by the Court.9 10. In the instant case, upon monitoring compliance with the Judgment, it is essential for the State to present a detailed, complete and updated report on the actions taken to comply with the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment that are pending compliance (supra Having Seen 2). Likewise, the Tribunal requests the submission of the respective observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the victims’ representatives. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercising its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 24 and 30 of the Statue, and Articles 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. In accordance with the provisions of Considering Clauses 6 to 10 of this present Order, the State has not fulfilled its obligation to inform this Court about measures taken to comply with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs issued on July 5, 2004, which are pending compliance. 2. The Court shall keep the monitoring process open for the following outstanding points: 7 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering Clause 7. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering Clause 7. 8 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause 5; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Surinam. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2010, Considering Clause 7, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering Clause 7. 9 Cf. General Assembly, Order AG/RES. (XL-O/10) adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” Operative Paragraph 4.