-33. To request that the representatives of the victims and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submit their observations to the State’s report referred to in the preceding paragraph, within a term of four and six weeks, respectively, next following receipt of said report. 4. To continue monitoring the points pending compliance contained in the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs of August 31, 2004. […] 3. The note of the Court’s Secretariat (hereinafter, the “Secretariat”) of June 1, 2006, in which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, it reminded the State of Paraguay (hereinafter the “State” or “Paraguay”) that the term for submission of the report on compliance with Judgment had expired on May 24, 2006, and that such submission had been required under Order of February 2, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). Therefore, the State was required to submit such report as soon as practicable. 4. The note of the Secretariat of July 12, 2006, in which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was required once again to submit the report on compliance with judgment as soon as possible, as such submission had been required by the Court by way of Order of February 2, 2006, and again required by way of note of June 1, 2006 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2 and 3). 5. The submission of September 13, 2006, in which Paraguay filed its report on compliance with Judgment, in response to the provisions of operative paragraph No. 2 of the Court’s Order of February 2, 2006 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2, 3 and 4). The State argued as follows: a) “at present arrangements are being made with the Ministry of Foreign Affaire, the Ministry of Treasury and the National Congress, so that budgetary funds are released and applied to due payment in favor of [Mr.] Canese,” and b) “copies of Directives Nos. 456 and 457 passed by the General Prosecutor’s Office “impelling the Minister of the Treasury and the Minister of Foreign Office to continue proceedings in order to fulfill the orders contained in the Judgment” had been timely submitted.1 CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions; 2. That Paraguay has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”) since August 24, 1989, and that pursuant to Article 62 of said convention, the State acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. On August 31, 2004, the Court passed Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any 1 The State submitted copies of said directives on October 5, 2005, as Exhibits to its first report.