4 3. When it deems it appropriate, the Tribunal may convene the State and the victims’ representatives to a hearing in order to monitor compliance with its decisions; the Court shall hear the opinion of the Commission at that hearing. 4. Once the Tribunal has obtained all relevant information, it shall determine the state of compliance with its decisions and issue the relevant orders. 5. These rules also apply to cases that have not been submitted by the Commission. 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court are bound to abide by the obligations established by the Court. This duty includes the State’s obligation to report on the measures adopted to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in the said decisions. The prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court about how it is complying with each aspect ordered by the Court is fundamental for evaluating the status of compliance in each case.5 a) Regarding the sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment 7. Regarding the State’s obligation to provide the appropriate treatment required by the next of kin of the victims who were executed during the facts of this case, the Court received information from the State and the representatives of the victims about the implementation of this measure of reparation during the private hearing on monitoring compliance (supra sixth having seen paragraph). The Court will rule opportunely on all the information received while processing the joint monitoring of the eight Colombian cases. b) Regarding the twenty-second operative paragraph of the judgment 8. In relation to the obligation to publish the proven facts and the operative paragraphs of the judgment in the Official Gazette, the State indicated that, on April 28, 2009, it had published the pertinent sections of the judgment and attached a copy of the publication;6 consequently, it asked that the Court “decree total compliance with this measure of reparation.” In this regard, the representatives stated that they were aware of the publication, which had been made in very small print. The Commission had already “noted the State’s compliance with [this] obligation” in its observations on the State’s third report (supra fourth having seen paragraph). 9. The Court observes that the State has complied with this measure of reparation. c) Regarding the twenty-third and twenty-fourth operative paragraphs of the judgment 10. With regard to the request made by the Court in its Order of July 7, 2009, for complete and specific information in order to corroborate compliance with the obligation to pay the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage indicated 5 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, fifth considering paragraph; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, eighth considering paragraph, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 3, sixth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Diario Oficial of the Republic of Colombia of April 29, 2009, pp. 17 to 23 (monitoring compliance file, tome II, folios 761 to 767).