-14interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. These obligations include the State’s duty to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in its decisions. The opportune observance of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how it is complying with each of the elements ordered by the Court is fundamental for assessing the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That, when monitoring complete compliance with the judgments on merits, reparations and costs delivered in this case, and after examining the information provided by the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin in their briefs on compliance with the reparations (supra Having seen paragraphs 4 to 7), the Court has verified which elements of the judgment have been complied with partially or totally by El Salvador, as well as the reparations that remain pending compliance. The Court considers in a positive light that the State has submitted information on all the reparations ordered by the Court. 9. That the Court has verified that El Salvador has complied with: (a) Establishment of a link to the complete text of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs on the search web page (ninth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005); (b) Payment to Suyapa Serrano Cruz of the amount established in paragraph 152 of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs for expenses related to the pecuniary damage suffered by the next of kin of the victims, some of which were assumed by the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda (twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). The representatives advised that “on May 22, 2006, the State of El Salvador made the payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims, next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz” (supra Having seen paragraph 7(a)); (c) Payment of the amounts established in paragraph 160 of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to the victims and their next of kin, in favor of Ernestina Serrano Cruz, Erlinda Serrano Cruz, María Victoria Cruz Franco, Suyapa, José Fernando, Oscar, Martha, Arnulfo and María Rosa, all Serrano Cruz (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). The representatives advised that “on May 22, 2006, the State of El Salvador paid the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims, next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz” (supra Having seen paragraph 7(a)). Also, the amount corresponding to the compensation 3 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 1, eighth considering paragraph; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph.