Inter-American Court, and their positive results.”3 In the same way, it has incentivized “the holding of hearings for monitoring compliance with judgments, as it is one of the most effective mechanisms for advancing compliance.”4 3. In order to illustrate the relevance of this function, it is worth recalling the events of the case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. In this case, as a result of a private hearing and discussion meeting at the Court’s headquarters, the State undertook a series of measures aimed at the execution of the only pending operative paragraph of the ruling. This led to full compliance with the Judgment, and the archiving of the case seven months after the hearing, with the demarcation and titling of more than 70,000 hectares in accordance with the Order passed down by the Tribunal on April 3, 2009.5 Similarly, in the case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, the State and the representatives were able to engage in dialogue and cooperation during the private audience, leading to the implementation of reparation measures pertaining the awarding of a scholarship for study or work training. These measures were finalized less than a month later, with the joint presentation of an agreement for an alternative form of compliance; this was later deemed satisfactory by the Tribunal.6 Likewise, after a private hearing for the case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, the Court noted, in regard to the obligation to pay default interest charges corresponding to the amount of compensation for material and immaterial damages, as well as reimbursement for costs and expenses, “the will of the parties to achieve progress on this point based on an agreement and is waiting for updated information on efforts and results achieved regarding the compliance with this aspect of the reparation.”7 4. The Inter-American Court’s verification of the occurrence of human rights violations, through the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, has led the Tribunal to order, pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention,” or “the Convention”), measures of diverse nature, that tend to correspond with the idea of holistic reparations. This includes not only compensation of a pecuniary nature, but also measures of a different sort, with the aim of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and non-recurrence of the proven violations. The implementation of these measures represents, as has already been stated, a gradual and complex process, which presents many opportunities for the participation of state institutions. The reason for this being that during the implementation of reparation measures, various organs and institutions of the State 3 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2500 (XXXIX-O/09) approved in the fourth plenary session, held June 4, 2009, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, pg. 3; Resolution AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10) approved in the fourth plenary session, held June 8, 2010, titled “Observations and Recommendation to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, pg. 2, and Resolution AG/RES. 2652 (XLI-O/11) approved in the fourth plenary session, held June 7, 2011, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, para. 6. 4 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2500 (XXXIX-O/09), supra nota 3, operative paragraph five; Resolution AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10), supra nota 3, operative paragraph five, and Resolution AG/RES. 2652 (XLI-O/11), supra nota 3, operative paragraph six. 5 Cfr. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, operative paragraphs 1 and 2. 6 Cfr. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 28, 2011, considering clauses 34 to 37, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, considering clauses 6 to 11. 7 Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, considering clause 39. 2