7 g) The State has failed to make the payment of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the costs and expenses within the fixed term, therefore, it “hopes that the obstacles hindering such payment […] are overcome as soon as possible,” and h) In general, the Commission has expressed its “deep concern” for the lack of compliance of almost all the Judgment, despite the fact that the State has acknowledged its responsibility during the proceedings regarding the case. 11. That from the information provided by the parties, after more than three years have elapsed since the said Judgment was issued, an almost total non-compliance with the Judgment is evidenced. The State informed about a Judgment issued on June 5, 2009 regarding the criminal action related to the disappearance of Mr. Blanco-Romero, and it informed about certain measures adopted to implement human rights courses for the Armed Forces and DISIP officers. Said information must be sent to this Court for evaluation. As regards the remaining measures of reparation, the State also acknowledged, at the private hearing held on July 4, 2009, that said measures were still pending compliance. 12. That at the private hearing, the State accepted the proposal made by the representatives regarding the need to set up a mandatory schedule determining the specific time periods to comply with the measures ordered in the Judgment. 13. That, considering the information provided at such private hearing, and the obligation assumed by the State, the Court requests Venezuela to submit, no later than October 10, 2009, a schedule of effective compliance with the Judgment setting forth the specific time periods therefor. Additionally, on such date, the State must file with the Court the Judgment issued on June 5, 2009, regarding the criminal action prosecuted for the disappearance of Mr. Blanco-Romero, as well as detailed, complete and updated information about the measures and actions taken up to that date in order to comply every and each of the Judgment obligations pending compliance. Furthermore, the State must inform if, as part of the incumbent domestic law process, it has notified the said judgment to the interested parties, so that they may exercise the corresponding rights established by law. 14. That, regarding Operative Paragraph 12 of the Judgment, by means of which the State was ordered “to adopt the essential measures required to facilitate minor Aleoscar Russeth Blanco-Iriarte’s departure from Venezuela,” the Court notices that said person has reached the age of majority; thus, it will not be necessary to continue with the monitoring of compliance in that respect. Therefore, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and 30(2) of its Rules of Procedure, Declares: