5 9. Providing sufficient information on compliance with the Judgment is a duty of the State, repeatedly stated by this Court. 4 10. Article 1(1) of the Convention stipulates the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and liberties recognized in that treaty and to ensure their free and full exercise by all persons under their jurisdiction. 5 11. Pursuant to the terms of Article 65 of the American Convention: [t]o each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly's consideration, a report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations. 12. Article 30 of the Statute of the Court provides that: [t]he Court shall submit a report on its work of the previous year to each regular session of the OAS General Assembly. It shall indicate those cases in which a State has failed to comply with the Court's ruling. It may also submit to the OAS General Assembly proposals or recommendations on ways to improve the inter-American system of human rights, insofar as they concern the work of the Court. 13. Due to the fact that the State has not fully complied with its obligation to report, if said situation were to continue the Court, applying Article 65 of the Convention (supra Considering 11) and Article 30 of the Statute of the Court (supra Considering 12), may include the instant Order into its Annual Report for the year 2003, for it to be submitted to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. NOW THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, exercising its authority to oversee compliance with its judgments and pursuant to the provisions of Articles 65, 67, 68(1) and 78(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 30 of the Statute of the Court and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That, pursuant to the basic pacta sunt servanda principle, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the 4 Cf., Neira Alegría et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. November 28, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering nine; El Amparo Case. Compliance with judgment. November 28, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering eight; Loayza Tamayo Case. Compliance with judgment. November 27, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering eight; Castillo Páez Case. Compliance with judgment. November 27, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering nine; Garrido y Baigorria Case. Compliance with judgment. November 27, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering eight; Blake Case. Compliance with judgment. November 27, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering nine; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Compliance with judgment. November 27, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering six and seven; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. June 21, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering two; Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with judgment June 6, 2003 Order of the Court, Considering ten and twelve; and “Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) Case. Compliance with judgment. November 28, 2003 Order of the Court, Considering ten. 5 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. June 7, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 99, para. 142; “Five Pensioners” Case. February 28, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 98, para. 163; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. August 31, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 79, para. 154.