4 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee the compliance with the conventional provisions and their own effects (effet utile) in the scope of their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only regarding substantive rules of human rights treaties, that is to say, those containing provisions on the protected rights, but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those which refer to the compliance with the Court Orders. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking the very special nature of human rights treaties into account.4 7. That the States Parties to the Convention which have acknowledged the adversarial jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations the Court sets forth. This obligation includes the duty of the State to inform the Court on the measures adopted for the fulfillment of what has been ordered through the Court Orders. The timely observance of the State obligation to inform the Court on how it is complying with each of the Court’s orders is critical to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 * * * 8. That with regard to the obligation to transfer half the amount corresponding to the reparations stated in the Term Certificate of Deposit (hereinafter referred to as “CD”) in United States dollars and the yield thereof to its maturity date to beneficiary Ingrid Carolina Caballero-Martínez, (first operative paragraph of the Judgment of reparations and costs), the State supplied a record dated February 8, 2008, in which the above mentioned beneficiary confirms to have received the amount of $ 59,043,208.00 (fifty-nine millions, forty-three thousand, two hundred and eight Colombian pesos) from the Ministry of National Defense, through payments into court made to her savings account on February 17 and February 23, and on March 10, 2006. The State further pointed out that on November 19, 2008, it paid the beneficiary an additional amount of USD 500.00 (five hundred United States dollars), corresponding to the difference between the amount for which the above mentioned CD was issued and the amount ordered by the Court in the Judgment. Consequently, the State requested the Court to declare the compliance with the reparation measure regarding the payment of compensations in favor of Ingrid Carolina CaballeroMartínez. 9. That the representatives did not present observations to the compliance with this reparation measure as they do not professionally advise said person. 10. That the Commission took cognizance of the submission of the documents which evidence the payments referred to by the State and it pointed out that Colombia allegedly complied with this reparation measure. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, par. 37; Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. six, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. six. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering Clause No. seven; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. seven, and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering Clause No. seven.