5 employment, in keeping with internal labor laws. In the same way, the state must provide compensation to heirs of victims who have passed away by way of a pension or retirement that applies (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment dated February 2, 2001). In that regard, the Tribunal requires information on: i) the specific actions carried out by the State and the advances toward the observance of this obligation; ii) the total number of, and names of, the victims that have been reinstated in their old positions, that of those who have been placed in other employment, that of those who have received compensation in return for the termination of the work relationship, and the names of those victims who do not fit in any of the aforementioned categories, together with the corresponding documentation; and iii) if the heirs of victims who have passed away have received compensation by way of pension or retirement; C) the payment of the interest generated for having carried out the payment of compensation for non pecuniary damages after the expiration of the deadline set by the Judgment and the payment of non pecuniary damages compensation to the heirs of victims who have passed away (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment, February 2, 2001; fourth operative paragraph of the Order on monitoring compliance with Judgment, November 22, 2002; fourth operative paragraph of the Order on monitoring compliance with Judgment, November 28, 2005). In that regard, the Tribunal requires information on specific actions taken by the State in complying with this point, regarding payments made to each victim and payments to the heirs of victims who have passed away. 14. That the monitoring of compliance with the judgments issued by the InterAmerican Court has taken place through a written process in which the State must present reports that the Tribunal requires. In response, the Inter-American Commission and the victims or their legal representatives should submit their comments. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court itself has recognized that, when considered convenient and necessary, it can call the parties to a hearing in order to listen to their arguments on compliance with the Judgment, as has been done in previous cases.2 15. 2 That as to hearings, Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that: Cfr. ICHR. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2007; ICHR. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2007; ICHR. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2007; ICHR. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 29, 2007; ICHR. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 29, 2007; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of October 29, 2007.