4 decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 * * * 5. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations ordered by the Court. This obligation includes 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 reporting obligation is twofold in nature and effective compliance requires the formal presentation of a document within the allotted time and with specific, true, current and detailed information on the issues to which this obligation refers. The State’s prompt compliance with this obligation to inform the Court about the measures it is taking to comply with each element ordered by the Court is fundamental for assessing the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.4 6. That the General Assembly of the OAS has reiterated that, in order for the Tribunal to be able to comply fully with the obligation of informing it of compliance with its judgments, it is necessary that the States Parties deliver the information required by it from them in a timely manner.5 7. That the Tribunal points out that during the stage of monitoring compliance with the Judgments, the Secretariat of the Court, following the instructions of the President of the Court, has addressed the State6 and the representative7 on several occasions 3 Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2005, Considering clause number 4, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 6. 4 Cfr. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering Clause number 12; Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering Clause number 12, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 03, 2005, Considering Clause number 7. General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-0/07) approved in the fourth regular session, held on June 5, 2007, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Reporto f the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 5 6 Cfr. Note of the Secretariat of April 6, 2004, reiterated June 3, 2004, through which it asked the State to present its report on compliance with judgment, since the term to do so had expired on April 1, 2004. The report was presented on June 4, 2004; Note of the Secretariat of June 29, 2004, through which it asked the State to send legible copies of the annexes to its report of June 4, 2004. Up to this date, the documents have not been presented; Note of the Secretariat of December 3, 2004, reiterated on February 21st, March 29th, June 7th, June 29th, August 17th, and September 28, 2005, through which it requested that the State inform of the advances made with regard to compliance. Said information was partially provided by the State on June 27, 2005 and completely on January 20, 2006; Note of the Secretariat of August 9, 2006, reiterated on September 20th, October 30th, and December 20, 2006, through which it asked the State forward the missing document of its report of August 8, 2006. Said document was sent on November 30, 2006, still illegible, and sent again on March 9, 2007; Note of the Secretariat of February 1, 2007, through which it asked the State to present, no later than March 6, 2007, a new report on compliance with the Judgments, and the notes of the Secretariat of March 14th and April 26, 2007, reiterating the request for the presentation of that report. Said report has not yet been presented. 7 Cfr. Note of the Secretariat of November 5, 2004, through which it confirmed receipt of a brief presented by the representative on that same day, which should have been presented on August 30, 2004; Note of the Secretariat of January 23, 2006, through which it asked the representative to present its