2 Within a year of notification of [the] judgment, the State must send the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with it. […] 2. The Order by the President of the Court issued on December 18, 2009, whereby, exercising the powers the Court has to monitor compliance with its decisions, she called the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”), the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter, “the State” or “El Salvador”) and the representatives of the victim (hereinafter, “the representatives”) to a public hearing, in order for the Court to obtain information from the State as regards compliance with the Judgment delivered in the instant case, and to receive the observations made by the Commission and by the representatives thereupon. 3. The argument by the parties at the public hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment held on January 28, 2010, at the seat of the Court.1 Considering: 1. That one of the inherent powers of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or "the Convention") since June 23, 1978 and, under Article 62 thereof, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 06, 1995. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, the State must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.2 4. That in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State within the term established to such effect. 5. That the States Parties to the Convention, having once accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court, must honor the obligations set by the Court. In that sense, El Salvador must adopt all the necessary measures to promptly comply with the terms 1 There appeared at such hearing on behalf of the Inter-American Commission: Ms. Lilly Ching and Ms. Silvia Serrano, counsel; on behalf of the representatives of the victims: Messrs. Benjamín Cuéllar Martínez (IDHUCA) and Henry Fino Solórzano (IDHUCA), and Ms. Gisela de León (CEJIL); and on behalf of the State: David Ernesto Morales Cruz, Agent and Director General de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores [Director General for Human Rights with the Foreign Affairs Ministry]; Sebastián Vaquerano, Deputy Agent and Ambassador of the Republic of El Salvador to Costa Rica, and Ms. Tania Camila Rosa, Sub Directora de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores [Deputy Director for Human Rights with the Foreign Affairs Ministry]. 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment delivered on November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 20, 2009, Considering Clause Number Three; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause Number Three.