6 7. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court on the measures adopted to comply with this Court’s Judgment, as well as in the instant Order. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case.4 Furthermore, the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, with the purpose that the Tribunal can fully comply with the obligation to report about the compliance with its decisions, it is necessary that State Parties timely provide to the Court the information that the latter requests them.5 8. That the obligation to inform the Court is not fulfilled with the mere formal presentation of a document to the Court. Rather, effective compliance constitutes the dual obligation of a formal presentation of a timely document and the specific, current, truthful and detailed material information upon which said obligation relies.6 * * * 9. That in monitoring the full compliance with the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs delivered in the instant case, and after analyzing the information provided by the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the victim in their respective communications regarding compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraphs 3 to 5), the Court observes that Argentina’s Executive Branch, by enacting Decree 99/06 and proposing a bill to the National Legislative Branch (supra Having Seen paragraphs 3.a and 3.b), has adopted measures that move toward full complying with the pending operative paragraphs of the November 28, 2002 Judgment, but has not complied with said obligations in a concrete manner. 10. That more than four and a half years after rendering the Judgment of November 28, 2002, there is a lack of compliance with four of the five reparation measures ordered by the Tribunal in said Judgment. 11. That, consequently, according to the information brought by the parties, the compliance with the following measures of reparation is still pending: a) “refrain from charging Mr. José María Cantos the filing fee and fine levied for failure to pay the filing fee on time[;]” (first operative paragraph of the Judgment of November 28, 2002); 4 Cf. Case of Barrios-Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph seventh; Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph seventh, and Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraph thirteenth. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2129 (XXXV-O/05) adopted in fourth plenary session, celebrated on June 7, 2005, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Annual Report”. 6 Cf. Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering paragraph twelfth; Case of LoayzaTamayo v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraph seventh, and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraph seventh.